This is from an old post of mine. I thought about this when I was talking to some of my friends in other countries, particularly the Philippines. I was telling them, “Whatever you do, please do not bring large numbers of these people in to your country. A few of them is ok, but lots of them is going to be a bad idea.”
That is because I figure that wherever large numbers of Blacks go on Earth, the following scenario below tends to occur. The end result is a lot of racism whereas when the Blacks first showed up, a lot of the natives might have been open-minded or indifferent to them. But after the Blacks have been there a while, a lot of understandable racism against them starts to develop, with a lot or understandable retaliatory racism and anger on the part of the Blacks towards the natives for the natives’ racism towards them. Don’t get me wrong, the racism of these natives will be real racism with all of its attendant injustice and targeting of innocents. Nevertheless, it wasn’t without a trigger, and in a lot of ways, the Blacks in a sense created their own rejection.
This whole situation is very sad because so many Blacks are not a problem at all. I am certain that Huicipher, Phillip, Tulio, Alpha, E. Varick, Mushawasha (sorry if I left anyone out) and the rest of the Blacks on here would make a fine addition to any non-White country, but the anti-Black racism engendered by the behaviors above is going to hit them very hard too because they are going to be lumped in with all of the bad actors. The whole thing is rather sad actually. A lot of innocent Blacks get hurt.
Blacks show up in the civilized, non-White society.
After a while, they begin engaging in mass uncivilized behavior, the most important of which is that they commit an utterly insane amount of crime.
Logically, police begin profiling them and whatnot.
Logically, police begin arresting an incredible number of Black criminals. Why? Because the Blacks are committing a surreal amount of crime.
Because cops are arresting a huge portion of the Black population, inevitable excesses result.
Pretty soon, Blacks begin screaming about “police brutality!”
Police institute all sorts of sensitivity measures, but Blacks never stop screaming.
Because an absolutely insane amount of Blacks are being arrested and incarcerated, Blacks complain that “the system ain’t fair – it’s racist.”
Nowadays, it is probably not even all that true, with some exceptions for very racist areas like the South. In fact, there are studies that show that Blacks are LESS likely to be arrested for crimes and LESS likely to be convicted for the crimes they commit.
Blacks scream and yell that the system isn’t fair, is racist, bla bla. Even when Black juries convict Blacks, Black cops shoot Black criminals, somehow it all be racist and shit.
Black juries begin freeing obviously guilty Black criminals, Blacks periodically engage in mass urban riots due to “police brutality”.
This bullshit goes on forever with no end in sight, ever.
The whole stupid cycle is caused by one thing: Blacks committing a ridiculous amount of crime in the first place! This is what causes the whole mess.
Great piece by Eric Walberg on Ayatollah Khamenei’s latest speech. Khamenei is a very wise man, and he doesn’t support terrorism against the West. He’s not a Salafi Jihadi. He’s Shia, and the radical Sunnis think that the Shia are infidel heretics who need to be killed. I enjoy his speeches, and I also enjoy those of the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah.
Shia Muslims are generally a lot easier to get along with than Sunni Muslims. For one thing. they have been persecuted themselves by Sunnis for centuries, so they have an idea of what it means to be a persecuted on the basis of one’s religion.
In Hezbollah controlled areas of Southern Lebanon, the Shia leave the Christians completely alone. There are many Christian villages there, and Hezbollah lets them do whatever they want. They are not subject to Sharia or Muslim dress codes, and Hezbollah doesn’t enforce Sharia anymore even on the Muslims it controls. Shia Muslim women in Hezbollah controlled areas are not even obliged to wear a headscarf.
There are also Sunni, Christian and Druze members of Hezbollah, and the non-Shia Hezbollah members experience no discrimination.
You can go into Hezbollah-controlled areas of Southern Lebanon and walk into a bar and order a beer. It’s not a problem at all.
The Shia have always been the more progressive Muslim sect as, like Catholics, they believe that Islam is a living religion that must be continuously interpreted to keep up with the times. Hence, Islam is continuously being interpreted by Ayatollahs as Catholicism is constantly being interpreted by Popes to be relevant with the times in which Shia Muslims are living.
This leads to a lot interesting thinking and rulings. Iran’s Ayatollahs have decided that transsexualism is compatible with Islam, and one of the highest ranking Iranian clerics is a transwoman or a man who has now turned into a woman.
Prostitution is also quite common in Iran, and the Ayatollahs see prostitutes are more of a persecuted group of women who need protection than carriers of vice. Recently there has been a lot of talk among the Iranian leadership about making prostitution legal and housing prostitutes in houses with madams overseeing them.
This would be done under the rubric of temporary marriage, a Shia custom that allows Shia to have sex even outside of marriage.
In fact, in the extremely religious city of Qom, the headquarters of the religious clergy, there is a thriving prostitution scene, and the male religious students studying there regularly buy prostitutes. There are many prostitutes plying their trade in Qom.
This also is done under the rubric of temporary marriage. The male religious student simply selects a prostitute, and the two of them go to one of the many religious clergy in town and say they want to have a temporary marriage. The clergyman then grants them a temporary marriage lasting usually about three days.
The student and the prostitute then go somewhere to have sex. Somewhere often means one of the large local cemeteries where believe it or not, prostitutes ply their trade in the underground tombs! The three day marriage often lasts more like a couple of hours, as the two do the deed and then part.
A high ranking woman in the Iranian government has made use of temporary marriage to have sex with ~50 male clerics over the years. She has been quite outspoken about her religiously sanctioned promiscuity, and apparently the Ayatollahs are just fine with it too.
When it comes to Islam, the Shia are clearly a different bird altogether.
Ayatollah Khamenei: “Westerners Mourning French Tragedy Should Pause for a Moment”
by Eric Walberg
The leader of the Islamic Revolution has once again addressed Western youth who either for the most part are misinformed about Islam because of the bias in media and society in favor of Israel and Zionism, or are Muslim but living in a climate of Islamophobia and in desperation have drifted to the militant jihadist movement which began in Afghanistan in 1979 with US blessing and is now a permanent feature of world politics. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls on them to “reconsider the threat of terrorism in the world, its roots and to find a deep insight into Islam.”
The tone of the Ayatollah’s reflections is calm and friendly, the content intelligent and at the same time heartfelt. You can feel his spirit of universal love and his anguish at the suffering that terrorism brings. It is sad to note that Western media and politicians have an obsession against Iran despite Iran’s constant reaching out and attempts to help the West fight terrorism. The reasons, of course, are Iran’s staunch support for Palestine and its refusal to submit to the dictates of imperialism. Both unforgivable ‘sins’.
These are not rational reasons. Following 9/11, Iranian intelligence shared information with US intelligence – until President Bush found out and put a stop to it. Iran made intelligent proposals to resolve the nuclear energy stand-off for the past decade, all rejected by the US. The world is blessed by Iran’s support for Palestine, as the Arab states are just not up to the task.
Like his earlier appeal, once again the Ayatollah calls for dialogue on the most painful matters to “create the grounds for finding solutions and mutual consultation”, or the situations will continue to spin out of control.
For the Ayatollah, each life is important and each unnatural death is a tragedy. “The sight of a child losing his life in the presence of his loved ones, a mother whose joy for her family turns into mourning, a husband who is rushing the lifeless body of his spouse to some place, and the spectator who does not know whether he will be seeing the final scene of life – these are scenes that rouse the emotions and feelings of any human being…whether they occur in France or in Palestine or Iraq or Lebanon or Syria. The Muslim world shares these feelings and are revolted by the perpetrators”.
The supreme leader explained that Muslims have suffered far more than anyone else due to colonial occupation and the trauma that Israel inflicts daily on Palestinians. Westerners mourning the French tragedy should pause for a moment.
“If the people of Europe have now taken refuge in their homes for a few days and refrain from being present in busy places – it is decades that a Palestinian family is not secure even in its own home from the Zionist regime’s death and destruction machinery. What kind of atrocious violence today is comparable to that of the settlement constructions of the Zionist regime?
“This regime…every day demolishes the homes of Palestinians and destroys their orchards and farms. This is done without even giving them time to gather their belongings or agricultural products and usually it is done in front of the terrified and tear-filled eyes of women and children who witness the brutal beatings of their family members.
Shooting down a woman in the middle of the street for the crime of protesting against a soldier who is armed to the teeth – if this is not terrorism, what is? This barbarism, just because it is being done by the armed forces of an occupying government, is it not extremism? Or maybe only because these scenes have been seen repeatedly on television screens for sixty years, they no longer stir our consciences.”
The Ayatollah laments the ongoing invasions and violation of the Muslim World by the West, “another example of the contradictory logic of the West. The assaulted countries, in addition to the human damage caused, have lost their economic and industrial infrastructure. Their movement towards growth and development has been thrown back decades.”
The Ayatollah looks to the youth of today, who he hopes will be educated to understand the beauty of Islam, and its compatibility with both Christianity and Judaism, its long history of peaceful relations, its rejection of imperialism and colonialism. They must “discover new means for building the future and be barriers on the misguided path that has brought the West to its current impasse.”
The Iranian leader optimistically assumes that people in the West mostly understand of the true nature of modern politics. That Westerners understand the role of the US in “creating, nurturing and arming al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their inauspicious successors, [that] these forces behind terrorism are allies of the West, while the most pioneering, brightest and most dynamic democrats in the region are suppressed mercilessly.”
I wish his words reflected the reality that I see around me in Canada. People are willfully ignorant about these matters, not wanting to see their governments as guilty of nurturing terrorism. My goal in writing is to inform people in these matters, but it is hard to get the message out. It is primarily time-servers who are welcomed by the mainstream media to ‘inform’ citizens.
I admire the Iranian leader’s honesty in pointing out that it is Western ‘culture’ that promotes “aggression and moral promiscuity”, and tries to destroy other cultures. “The western world with the use of advanced tools is insisting on the cloning and replication of its culture on a global scale. I consider the imposition of Western culture upon other peoples and the trivialization of independent cultures as a form of silent violence and extreme harmfulness.”
He does “not deny the importance and value of cultural interaction, but warns against “inharmonious interactions”. That conjures up the image of Westernized youth sneaking into a Russian Orthodox cathedral or a Tehran public place and loudly promoting a Western ‘human rights’ agenda with Western photojournalists on hand, waiting to send some distorted image out on the internet. The upshot is either Russophobia or Islamophobia, whereas the real violation is of national dignity.
This shows that Western culture is in fact non-culture, and promotes apathy, decadence, or nihilism which oppresses us all today. But, disillusioned as I am with Western media and its brainwashing, I was heartened after the Paris bombings to hear sensible Canadians reject the jihadists’ plan to promote Islamophobia, forcing Muslims to join them in their will-o’-the-wisp Caliphate.
There are many Muslims in Canada now – eleven of them are members of Parliament in the ruling Liberal Party. A 30-year-old Afghan woman Maryam Monsef is Minister of Democratic Institutions. Muslims are first rate Canadians – hard working, quiet, educated, devout. They are slowly transforming Canada for the better, including acting as examples of what Islam can do to benefit society.
I am also encouraged by the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister, ousting the ultra-Zionist Iranophobe Stephen Harper. Muslim Canadians voted for Trudeau en masse. All eleven Muslim MP’s are Liberals. He has a silver bullet against terrorism: the only way to fight ISIS responsibly is to ‘do the right thing’, and expose their policy of violence as bad for Muslims, bad for everyone. Already thousands of communities across the country have pledged to sponsor Syrian families and are busy hosting fundraisers.
Terry Nelson, Grand Chief of the Southern Chiefs Organization, says Manitoba’s plans to bring refugees in from other countries should not be impacted by events in Europe. “There’s been an invitation for 2,500 Syrian people to be here in Winnipeg,” he said. “They should not be judged by a small minority of people that are terrorists. We live in the greatest country in the world. The most peaceful country in the world. We are blessed.”
I believe that this song came out in 1980. It was a big hit at the time. I must say that is a catchy tune they have there. It really sticks in your head something good. This was another of the very early great punk rock songs.
You try to tell me it’s his fault because he’s down.
And letting loose this homicide all over town!
What’s your number? I’ll take it down.
What’s your address? I’ll write it down.
I’ll be in touch. So don’t leave town!
In a big!
I believe in homicide.
I rest my case!
Don’t cast aside!
You’d better believe it!
That’s the truth of it!
Take it or leave it.
Resign to it.
God I love The Damned. From 1976! The year the Sex Pistols appeared on the scene. The Damned was one of the first British punk rock group, forming around the same time as the Pistols and other early groups. They also liked to smash up their instruments on the stage. The Who of course started that sort of thing.
LA punk rock from 1978 first wave! It seems almost impossible to believe that this music was made fully 35 years ago. Incredible.
As you can see, punkers were not patriotards or Republicans, at least in the first wave, though it started getting that way later with some of the Orange County bands. The early LA punks were all very leftwing. In fact, there were gay musicians and even gay bands, and no one cared one bit. Most of the first wavers thought the scene got ruined with all the rightwing conservatives and Nazis from Orange County dragging in all their bull sexism and homophobia.
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron.
Gonna drop it all over the place.
Yer gonna get it on yer face.
Foreign aid from the land of the free.
But don’t blame me!
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron
You don’t understand, you don’t know what you mean.
We don’t want you, we want your machines.
United Nations and NATO won’t do.
It’s just the red, white and blue.
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron bomb!
We got the neutron, that’s the way it’s gotta be.
Survival of the fittest, is the way it’s gonna be.
We don’t want it, we don’t want it!
Don’t blame me!
We don’t want it, we don’t want it!
Don’t blame me!
Women from the Muslim part of the world can be quite pretty, but you won’t be able to touch them if you are from outside their culture.
I don’t know. I think an Alpha could get a Muslim woman. Or someone with fantastic Game. Which may be a redundancy, since someone with fantastic Game either is an Alpha or he might as well be one.
Please understand that Alphas and guys with great Game pretty much break all the rules when it comes women. You need to throw out all the rules when it comes to these guys because they can get a woman, even a hot woman, in almost any circumstances.
Understand that Alphas and guys with great Game pretty much break all the rules when it comes women. You need to throw out all the rules when it comes to these guys because they can get a woman, even a hot woman, in almost any circumstance.
Need money to get women? Sure, most of us do. Alphas? Not at all. A lot of these guys are bums, criminals, drug dealers or gigolos who don’t even work. And that’s when they are not incarcerated! Many of them live off women their whole lives, and it is not common for Alphas to be in and out of jails and prisons. Even into their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, many Alphas are poor or low income, live in shoddy apartments and drive beat-up old cars and either don’t work or work at some lousy low paying job. Of course none of that keeps them from getting women, even hot women.
You need a job to get women? Don’t think so. Alphas don’t. See above.
You need a car to get women? Or as the saying goes, “Must have a job and a car?” Not really. Alphas can surely get women even if they don’t have a car. Anyway, that won’t last long because soon they will be hooked up with a generous woman who gives them the use of her car.
Can’t get a Muslim woman in a Muslim country or from a Muslim culture? Sure, most of can’t. But I would bet good money that an Alpha could. I would guess that North African countries like Morocco, Egypt, etc. would be easier than the rest. People seem to be more secular in much of North Africa than in the rest of the Arab World for some reason. Anyway, North Africans are not even really Arabs. They are better seen as Berbers or Arabized Berbers. There is also a lot of influence from Black culture, and Black culture anywhere generally seems to be more permissive about sex than non-Black cultures.
You need some status to get a woman? Sure it would help for most of us to get some. But Alphas don’t really need it. In fact, Alphas obtain status rather miraculously simply by being Alphas and for no other reason. In other words, an Alpha gets status by opening the door and walking in to the crowded room. As he steps into the room, the people in the room all look up to him to see who he is, and he obtains status immediately simply due to his commanding and yes, superior and all-encompassing vibes. In other words, Alphahood creates its on status, if you can understand that.
you need to dress up nice to get a woman? Most of us would be helped by such a suggestion, but I am dubious whether Alphas need to dress up all that much. A good Alpha could probably do great even with a rather shoddy wardrobe.
Remember what it takes to get women:
If you don’t have the first four, you better have the next two or three! Really all you need are 5 and 6 or better yet, 5-7. two. Game without Looks can be done, but I don’t think it is all that easy. Anyway a lot of men who are not formally goodlooking at all and are in fact rather ugly by classical terms still do great with women only because they are sexy. Recall that men to not have to be beautiful. Ruggedly handsome brings up all sorts of phenotypes, some of which are even classically ugly. But these men are always very masculine and better yet, they are sexy as all Hell.
If you have Game and Sexiness or Game, Sexiness and Looks, you can forget about the first four. However, Looks alone without Sexiness/Game is probably worth jack. And all Sexy men have good Game. And if you have good Game, you are invariably Sexy, and you are also likely to have Looks, but not necessarily.
Masculine? Not necessarily. I have known quite a few Alphas who were rather feminine. Not effeminate, but feminine, and there is quite a difference. Quite a few were androgynes, often with a strong Feminine aspect going but often at the same time a strong or even extremely strong Masculine aspect.
Having a lot of Feminine aspect is no big deal for a man as long as you have a good Masculine aspect to balance it out. In fact, I often think that Pure Androgynes such as this (Strong Masculine + Strong Feminine) are like honey to bees for women. They simply cannot resist them.
Also the Feminine aspect allows these men to understand women very well, better than most most men. In addition, the Feminine aspect allows these men to feel very comfortable around women. I have met a number of Alpha Pure Androgynes who told me that they preferred to associate with female over males. Many told me that they didn’t even like males – they only liked females.
With a number of them, many of their friends were women. However, these female friends were always fixing these Alphas up with all of their friends. And quite a few of these guys were not able to sustain platonic friendships with women because they told me that sooner or later, the woman would usually try to seduce them. Apparently some men are just irresistible to women, and any women who gets closer to them, even as a close friendship, can’t resist getting sexual with them.
This seems to be true of some of the Alphas that I have known. Sure some Alphas like to have female friends, but it seems that over time, they are not able to sustain them because the relationship invariably turns sexual. It appears that women simply cannot sustain nonsexual friendships with Alphas. It’s like handing out free candy to a kind in a candy store. They can only resist the presence of the Alpha in close proximity to them for a certain period of time before they have to either cut it off or it tuns sexual. Something has to give.The tension and frustration can no longer be sustained.
Fighting off the allure of an Alpha who ma woman is close to may be near impossible. It’s probably like resisting the gravitational pull of a small planet. And indeed, Alphas do resemble micro-planets. They seem to have a gravitational field around them that sucks any woman close to them into its orbit whether she wants to be turned in to an encircling moon of his or not. It’s not like she has any choice in the matter.
“In these riots, we saw Muslims who don’t practice the Islamic religion in their daily lives standing up for their culture and religion in a very aggressive way. Copenhagen was smoking for an entire week due to several hundred of fires, and the police and firemen trying to calm the situation down were also attacked.
“A big part of the rioters ended up in the prison where I worked, and I therefore I had the chance to talk with them. Almost all of them were Muslims, and they all claimed that what they have done — starting fires, attacking the police etc. — was justified since Danish society, through its pressure on integration and through reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, has proven itself to be racist and against Islam and Muslim culture. ”
This is from your own article in 2010!
How do we avoid Moslems “standing up for their culture” in America like they did in Denmark, and continue to do in France, Sweden, Germany, even the UK?
Denmark is ~5% Muslim right now. That’s a bad percentage. In Europe, once they start getting up around 5%, they start causing a lot more problems.
I don’t know. Do you see thousands of Muslims running amok in the US setting fire to whole neighborhoods where flames burn for a week due to the continuous arson?
Let’s worry about problems like that if and when they ever happen. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. US Muslims are not going to tear up the neighborhood like these Euro Muslims are. These Muslims in the US just don’t have any numbers.
How do you know what the Muslims in your town TELL you is really how they feel, and not just “Taqiyyah”?
They’re not lying to me.
Most of the ones who bother to come here get over the “hate the infidels” bull. Hell, if they are even willing to work with Jews in New York, they cannot be too into the hate the infidel bullshit.
I have met a few Muslims who were somewhat radicalized. They don’t really try to hide it honestly.
I think this “taqiyya” thing is massively exaggerated. Taqqiya was supposed to allow Muslims to lie when they are in a population that is hostile and oppressive towards Muslims. That is, they are allowed to lie to get by in a hostile environment. The Jews, Alawi, Druze, Yezidis and others all have similar customs. I am afraid that most of this taqiyya bull is just Islamophobic nonsense.
Even the Palestinians in this town are not very radical. I met four of them. I was shocked at how moderate they were. I was much more radical on the subject of Israel than they were. They practically considered me to be a terrorist based on the way I talked. The attitude of many of the Palestinians who come to the US is “The Hell with the Israel-Palestine conflict. We are done with that BS, and we have to come to America to forget about it, move on and let bygones be bygones.”
I met two brothers who told me that the Jews had out and out stolen 50 acres of their family’s land in the West Bank and turned it into a military base. They never got paid one nickel for it, and the Jews are never going to give it back. But they didn’t even sound very radical when they were talking about that. They sounded like they wanted to forget about it and move on.
I will say one thing. Muslims here respect you a lot more if you are religious. I imagine they do not think too much of atheists. I told them that I went to the local Catholic Church and they were very happy like, “Good! You worship God! Everyone should have a religion.”
One of the Palestinians even said, “Why don’t you like Islam? There’s nothing wrong with Islam. Islam is just like Catholicism. There’s not much difference really.” He seemed to respect Catholicism as some sort of rather conservative creed that worshiped the same God the Muslims did.
One thing I will say though is if you get close to these Muslims here, they will try to convert you to Islam. They already tried that with me. They invite you to a big meal at the mosque, and apparently this is a way to try to convert you. Islam is definitely a proselytizing religion.
I would support allowing 8-10,000 Muslim immigrants into the country every year. The reason is that we let in 1 million immigrants per year. Muslims are now only .8% of the population. If we let in 8,000 Muslims per year, then the Muslim population will not grow, as we are only letting in Muslims as a precise percentage of their already existing population.
The main issue with Muslims in my opinion is to not increase the population in the US. In other words, going from .8% Muslims to 2% Muslims would be a bad idea. Going from .8% Muslims to 5% Muslims would be much more of a problem along the lines of what a number of West European countries are experiencing now. If the Muslim population stays at .8%, then letting 10,000 Muslim in a year will not budge that figure one bit. They will remain ~1% forever at that rate.
On the other hand, their population could grow due to a high birth rate. But once again, the issue with Muslim immigration is that Muslim immigration in and of itself should not increase the % of the population that is Muslim in the US. As long as Muslim immigration is low enough that it is not increasing the Muslim population as as % of the whole, then Muslim immigration is not a problem.
I do not believe that US Muslims are a problem in and of themselves. Sure, some are a problem, but the overwhelming majority seem to be ok. Muslims are like Blacks. Sure some Blacks are criminals and give the group a bad name, but Blacks are not a problem in and of themselves because so many Blacks are living perfectly decently like you, me or anyone else. Saying all US Muslims are evil is like saying all US Blacks are evil – it’s as bunch of stupid racist bull.
We have Yemeni, Pakistani and Palestinian Muslims in this town. These Muslims in my town are causing exactly zero problems. They are not even very radical. I would say that I am far more of an America-hater than any Muslim in my town.
I know each of these Muslims pretty well, but I know the Yemenis better than the others. In fact, a number of them are friends of mine. These Yemenis are not causing any problems at all.
A few of them are out and out patriotards. One graduated from Georgetown University and is in with US government types. At first he wanted to work for the FBI as an Arabic interpreter. He flies back to DC for political conferences sponsored by the State Department.
He is a very strong supporter of US foreign policy. In fact, when he opens his mouth, he sounds like a mixture of Hillary Clinton, Ashton Carter and John Kerry. He buys into all the Deep State propaganda of the corporate media 100%. The guy’s a lost cause. He’s not an America-hater at all. In fact, he’s and out and out neocon patriotard!
I don’t think they hate non-Muslims one bit. I have never heard them say anything against non-Muslims, not one word. They don’t even like to talk bad about Jews. In fact, they worry about me because they think I am an antisemite, and they think antisemitism is uncool. The older man told me that Yemeni Muslims and Yemeni Jews get along in the US quite well, as they put aside whatever differences they might have had in the homeland. He said many Yemeni Muslims work together with Yemeni Jews in New York running stores.
If they hate anyone, it’s Shiites and Iranians, but the old man doesn’t mind the Shia, and he doesn’t care about Iran either. He hates the Saudis worse than anyone else in the region. This opinion is apparently common, as many Yemeni nationalists despite the Saudis since Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen over and over and treats Yemen like a colony. The older guy in fact is supporting the Shia Houthis in their war against the Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, Sudanese, Jordanian, US and UK aggressors and invaders.
He told me that the Zaidi Shia of Yemen are just about Sunnis theologically. They only differ in one or two minor ways. In fact the “Shia” Zaidis are themselves diverse as not all of them even identify as Shia! Some “Shia” Zaidis say that they are actually Sunnis, and others say that they are both Sunni and Shia at the same time. They characterize themselves in these odd ways because Zaidism is so close to Sunnism doctrinally.
I have a very hard time understanding why these Muslims in my town are some sort of enemy within. Sure there are radicalized US Muslims, but I’ve never met one myself.
I don’t know man, the left really has not been successful in creating economic growth anywhere in Latin America. So I can’t blame them for going right down there. Blame that on the incompetence of the Latin American left.
How was the Latin American Left incompetent? I can’t think of one way that they were incompetent.
It was the Right that failed. Look at the neoliberalism of the 1990’s. It completely collapsed economic growth in Latin America. Most Latin Americans could give a f about economic growth. I think Colombia has the highest economic growth in the Hemisphere. What good is it doing them?
Economic growth in Latin America has typically benefited only the elites. The neoliberalism that the US pushed in the 1990’s and 2000’s impoverished most people and crashed economic growth. Only the top 20% in Latin America benefited from the neoliberalism that Washington and the Latin American Right pushes. In Chile, all rightwing economics did was engender a mass transfer of wealth from the bottom 2/3 of income bracket to the top 1/3 of the income bracket. Why support that?
Chile has not even really turned to the Right anyway. They’ve been electing Socialists from Allende’s party for the last 20 years of so. When was the last time a self-proclaimed Socialist was elected to the US? But those Socialists are not able to do all that much though the latest one claims she is different.
Most of the people in Chile probably do not support this rightwing bullshit. Chile is just like the US – the poor, working and middle classes all vote for the parties of the Rich, and they damage their own interests by doing so. There is a significant crowd who are now invested in this rightwing bullshit, but I doubt if it is the majority. Instead you have one of the most politically polarized populations on Earth.
Schoolkids stage demonstrations all the time about public schooling, which has been in essence defunded by the state. Your average Chilean public school now has a caved-in roof and ceiling that will never be repaired. These student demonstrations typically turn violent and have to be broken up by the police.
The class hatred in Chile is so thick you can cut it with a knife. This is what your rightwing dream politics gives you – one of the most unequal societies on Earth, mass transfers of wealth from everyone else to the upper middle class and the rich and defunding of public anything, especially the schools.
Also casual racism and classism of your average Chilean would knock your cocks off. I had a friend who was a Chilean university student in Santiago. His father had served in Allende’s government. He was a sociology student studying the Indians in the South. Nevertheless the racism and classism of this supposedly leftwing Chilean was off the charts from a US point of view. Apparently it is perfectly normal in Chile to think like a bigoted White aristocrat.
My understanding is that economic growth has been excellent under the Left regimes in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and even the Fake Left rightwingers Brazil.
As I said, most Latin Americans would give a flying f about economic growth. It’s never benefited them anyway. Most of them just want an improvement in their standard of living. And that is exactly what the new Left regimes down there have given them – Venezuela in particular is a standout.
I am not aware of any statistics that show that the Right in Latin America is doing any better growth-wise than the Left, and it wouldn’t matter anyway because under the Latin American Right, all of the economic growth only goes to the top 20% of the population, and everyone else loses money.
Yeah, it sounds no worse than the USA to be honest.
It’s nothing like the US at all. First of all, a large segment of the population are out and out fascists who support the fascist Pinochet, America’s favorite Latin American hero.This same segment also absolutely despises the Allende regime as what they see as the Regime of Satan. They hate his supporters today, and they pretty much want them dead.
A very large other segment of the population supported the Allende regime and hate Pinochet with a passion. There are regular demonstrations between Pinochet supporters among the rich and Allende supporters among the non-rich. These typically break out into wild riots where both sides physically assault each other.
You have a split population class- and politics-wise where the non-rich and the Left is basically the Radical Left and the rich and upper middle class are the Extreme Right, fascists for all intents and purposes. Society is completely polarized.
Women’s rights are abysmal.
The Indians of the South stage regular demonstrations about this or that injustice which typically turn violent.
The situation down there is so extreme that is nothing like the US at all. We hardly have any class hatred here. The Right is indeed the Hard Right, but they are not Pinochet-style fascists, though they are getting that way fast. The Left down here is not the Hard Left at all. The Left is represented by the Democratic Party, which is a somewhat liberal version of the Republican Party. We don’t have regular wild street battles between the Left and Right. The classism and racism in the US is nowhere near that of Chile.
Women’s rights in the US are excellent. The natives are politically neutered and are too drunk and stoned to get out of bed in the morning, much less demonstrate about anything.
An Ainuid! What is this hairy Ainu man doing in East Timor?
Maricon Power writes:
Robert Lindsay, I do agree on many of your point. The only thing I don’t agree is that Jomons (ancestors of Ainu ) were descendants of the Jomonese Thailand in 16,000 YPB. You’re right that they descended from Southeast Asia but most likely that location is in southern Southeast Asia, maybe Timor.
”According to Hanihara, modern Japanese lineages began with Jomon people who moved into the Japanese archipelago during Paleolithic times from their homeland in southeast Asia.”
Hello, a study was done using many different Asian skulls. When plotted on a graph with all of the other skulls, Jomonese 13,000 was a perfect match for Thailand 16,000 (Proto-Thai). “Proto-Jomonese” types were probably widespread through SE Asia at the time. The types in Easts Timor and in Thailand are probably the same people.
Chile is supposed to be the dream state of the radical rightwing economic types that shows how neoliberalism and radical free market capitalism is the best system ever. They point to Chile and cheer about what a supposed success story it is. But I have always felt that Chile blows under this new model. If Chile is a the rightwing free marketeers’ showcase, then what can I say? They can have it. It ain’t no showcase to me. A showcase for what? What the Hell kind of a model is that?
I really enjoyed this letter from a commenter which sums up all of my feelings about Chile and also adds some new problems that I was not aware of. I also liked her writing style!
I lived in the States many years before relocating to Santiago in the early 80’s. I’ve lived here 30 years, so I know what it’s like. There is good and bad as everywhere else, and you just have to come to terms. A taxi driver once told me, “La tierra es buena pero la raza es mala”. I love living near the Andes, but Chilean society is screwed up.
For instance, everybody lies because they can’t be authentic — it’s taboo to be authentic here. Chileans are artists at making nice but once they (esp. males) are behind the wheel of a car, they become total A-holes. The driver with a bigger vehicle who is going a lot faster than you are has right of way.
Abusive practices are the norm. If you show assertiveness, watch out – you will have hidden enemies who will be sharpening their knives then gloating over your downfall.
In my opinion Pinochet was Darth Vader all right. The dictatorship ushered in the reign of evil, the untrammeled power of money.
They trumpet about how Chile is less corrupt than any other Latin American country, but this is just because they hide it better, and the recent scandals are starting to uncover the dirt.
Appearances are everything here: modernity, progress are a smokescreen — look behind or underneath and you’ll find the cowering underclasses and a middle class under siege.
The powerless fight back with ingenious scams and byzantine violent tactics against the wealthy when they are weakest, like attacking women returning from the mall in their Mercedeses and Porsches at their electric gates.
I do fault the elites here for their selfishness, and yes, their stupidity. They refuse to understand that by holding back the progress of the underclasses and refusing to change their 19th century habits and attitudes, they are destroying the future of a beautiful country that could be a genuine beacon… they’re too addicted to the Just-Us mentality of the ex-colonized and white immigrants who’ve turned into internal colonizers, moneyed groups inside their exclusivist enclaves.
The Mapuche Nation is continually at war with the political and economic elites because these have pillaged and landgrabbed the south far worse than the Spaniards ever did. It really is shameful, the lack of conscience and egoism of the supposedly breast-beating devout Catholic wealthy of this country and the hypocrisy and brazen greed of the corporate classes.
The youth are fighting for free quality education, for dignity and respect — they had it under Allende. It’s shocking to see how the militarized police shoot teargas at schoolchildren and their parents, how they beat peacefully marching high school kids with their truncheons, and how the media blame the students for the violence when witnesses see the police themselves go out disguised as rioters.
Pinochet and the oligarchy have not ceased to hate Allende. They got their way, but they’ve been a total failure notwithstanding all the gleaming high-rises (and no thought for the resulting worsened traffic congestion and no provision of sidewalks where pedestrians can walk safely) and the faux macroeconomic growth and lowered poverty rates (while executives earn 500 times more than ordinary workers).
Foreigners agree that Santiago is a hostile city, nothing is done about air pollution, there are growing numbers of homeless, prices vary 50% or 100% depending on whether you live in a poor, unsafe municipality or in a tony one, builders destroy residential neighborhoods with malls and substandard high-rise apartment buildings that fewer and fewer can afford to rent in. Ritzy clinics provide lousy medical care when you do have an emergency.
Many dream of leaving Santiago, but most jobs are here, and services in other regions are under-financed or nonexistent.
I’m not even going to discuss the sorry state of women’s rights and the violence against women.
Something’s gotta give. We need a sea change in mentality. We need to put paid to savage capitalism, i.e., neoliberalism. The foundations of Chilean society laid down by elites with a social conscience and the ethos of service between the 1920’s and the 1960’s have been well-nigh demolished. The military coup was the start of the darkest period ever seen in this country, and we have yet to see how the light will return.
This new comment appeared on one of Alpha’s older stories, Rodbusters. I thought it was good enough that I am going to share it with you. I love it when working class men come to my site and tell us about their lives and work. If this site is anything, it is pro-working class, pro-prole. I would also say that if the Alternative Left is anything at all, it is also pro-working class and pro-prole. If that doesn’t describe you, I do not think you belong on the Alternative Left. You can always just vote Republican or DNC if that’s the case.
PS. I also rather like his writing style. It’s interesting how often working class men can write surprisingly well.
Rod buster from Canada here,
Well put good sir.
I have had the misfortune to work non union for the first year of my career, it’s worse than you think.
All weather, dirty, grueling, dangerous conditions, are the same union or not. But having to work on the top of a high-rise during a lightning storm because they refused to shut the job down because they couldn’t afford delays (for $16 an hour!!) was an eye opener that sometimes the hardest workers are valued the least, and you are seen as simply a vessel for making money.
All things aside, there is a huge satisfaction in knowing that your skillset can literally build a skyscraper with your own bare hands. And that’s something that not everyone can say.
Thankfully I work union now, but I really feel for the guys who I used to work with who don’t have the same rights and protections that I get.
Roddies are some of the most colorful individuals that you will ever meet. We may butt heads occasionally, but at the end of the day, almost nobody can lift a 40′ piece of 35m by themselves.
You have to work as a team, end of story. So rebar can be thought of as almost like an extreme team sport. To the greenhorns on your crew, there is a somewhat cruel necessity to weed out the weak. So everyone gets hazed to one extent or another, and if you aren’t thick skinned, and you aren’t a team player, you have no business being there, and you will know within the first few days that not everyone has the heart to be a rodman.
It is a job that will push you to your breaking point and then mock you every step of the way, and if you aren’t headstrong, you will not make it. It’s brutal and unforgiving, but at the same time, one of the most unforgettable experiences is to have come out on top.
It has its own rewards I guess. Knowing that your blood, sweat and tears created something that will be there long after you are gone.
That’s why I’m proud to have earned the right to call myself a rodbuster.
Discuss Severaid’s quote and my examples given below, agreeing, disagreeing or expanding on the notion.
The chief cause of problems is solutions
– Eric Sevareid
I think this guy is onto something.
War on Terror – Solution was all out war on “terrorism” – really just disobedient Muslim states and some international guerrilla/terrorist groups.
The “solution” did not solve the problem at all, and in fact it made it much worse and introduced quite a few new problems.
The “solution” to the “Muslim terrorism problem” did nothing to alleviate the problem, and the problem only expanded massively, in the process destroying much of the secular Muslim world and replacing it with ultra-radical, armed and ultraviolent fundamentalists. Several new failed states were created out of functioning but authoritarian secular regimes.
A wild Sunni-Shia war took off with no end in sight. A new Saudi-Iran conflict expanded to include all of the Sunni world against Iran and some Shia groups.
The policy was incoherent – in places (Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Libya) secular nationalists were overthrown and replaced with radical fundamentalist regimes (Iraq, Palestine) or failed states teeming with armed fundamentalist actors (Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Mali). In other places, fundamentalist regimes were overthrown and secular nationalists were put in (Egypt).
We alternately attacked and supported radical groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. An awful Russia-Turkey conflict took off on the Middle east with the US and NATO siding with Al Qaeda and ISIS supporting Turks. The US attacked and armed fundamentalists to attack Shia Iranian, Hezbollah and Houthi armies waging all out war on Al Qaeda and ISIS. In Yemen we actively attacked the Shia who were fighting Al Qaeda while supporting Al Qaeda and fundamentalist Sunnis with intel and weaponry.
Some Kurds were called terrorists and support was given to those attacking them. Other Kurds were supported in their fight against ISIS. In actuality, all of these Kurd represented the same entity. There really is no difference between the PKK, the YPG and the rulers of the Kurdish region. Meanwhile, Kurds fighting for independence were supported in Iran and Syria and attacked in Turkey though they were all the same entity.
Billions of US dollars and thousands of US lives were wasted for essentially no reason with no results or actually a worsened situation. Russia, one of the most effective actors in the war against Al Qaeda and ISIS, was declared an enemy and attacks on them by our allies were cheered on.
A horrible refugee crisis was created in Europe.
Muslim populations in the West were substantially radicalized.
Instead of ending Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorist, conventional and guerrilla attacks absolutely exploded in the Middle East and to a lesser extent in Europe, Canada, Australia and the US. It also exploded in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Thailand, the Philippines and of course Syria and Iraq. There was considerable fighting and terrorism in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco and Jordan. The Palestinians ended up much better armed than before and the conflict exploded into all out war on a few occasions.
Terrorism and guerrilla war exploded in Mali, Nigeria, Cameroon, Somalia and Kenya with some new attacks in Niger, Mauritania, Chad and Uganda. Somalia took a turn for the worse as a huge Al Qaeda force set up shop there and the country turned into the worst failed state ever with nothing even resembling a state left and the nation furthermore split off into three separate de facto nations.
The “solution” failed completely and simply ended up creating a whole new set of problems that were vastly worse than the original problem for the which the solution was directed.
Technology: Technology itself could be regarded as a lousy fix to many problems.
Robert Lindsay once called Black violence “Masculinity for people who’ve never had male role models.”
Damn, did I actually write that? I can’t believe I even wrote that. Damn that’s a brilliant concept.
Is there anything to it? What say you all?
I mean, it’s so obvious that this is just men doing when men always do – trying to be tough and hard via aggression, violence, brutality, intimidation, menace, etc.
In other words, by terrorizing people, mostly other men. Which is something we men do you know. Terrorize each other. Not just for the sheer fun of it, though it can be a kick. More for safety, status climbing, competition, pride, honor and especially that thing that everyone insists doesn’t exist anymore called masculinity, which is one of the most important concepts in any males life, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Robert Lindsay, why do pure Ainu have lighter skinned than Japanese? Are Ainu Northern Australoids (cold adapted Australoids?) or are they pigmented? I’ve seen pigmented Tamils and Veddas that look almost European; even the Australian aborigines would.
Look at this map of glacier cover in Japan at the height of the last glaciation about 20,000 years ago.
It shows the Hokkaido (Ainu land) living in a climate different from every other Asian countries.
The Ainu are indeed cold adapted Australoids, and they are actually Vedda types. A comparison of Veddoids and Ainu will show that they match perfectly.
The map of Ainu land is not correct. 20,000 YBP there were no Ainu in Japan. The ancestors of the Ainu are the Jomon. Jomonese skulls line up perfectly with skulls from Thailand 16,000 YBP. The Jomonese show up in Japan 13,000 YBP. So the Jomon left Thailand sometime between 16,000 and 13,000 YBP and made their way eventually up to Japan. When they first arrived in Japan, the Jomonese ranged over the entire country. They were not in Hokkaido alone.
They only ended up in Hokkaido when the Yayoi came from Korea to Japan 2,300 YBP and slowly conquered their way up the island, defeating and displacing the Ainu along the way. The Ainu were eventually pushed up to Hokkaido where the Japanese no longer pursued them much. Hokkaido is where they were found when modern anthropology discovered them in the modern area, but they have not always been located only there.
There has been another mass shooting in the US, and this was one of the worst ones of all – up there with Columbine and the other mega-horrors. At last count, there were 15 dead and 19 wounded. One of the dead is one of the shooters, and two of the wounded are a shooter and a cop. All of the rest are the civilians who got shot.
The shooting occurred in San Bernardino, which is part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. This is a part of Southern California called the Inland Empire.
The shooting happened at a County Disability Services building where some sort of a holiday buffet was underway. In other words, it was a party at work. There was some sort of a an altercation or argument at the party, and one of the employees left the gathering. He then returned with two of his friends. They were dressed in all black with black face masks. The three burst into the gathering and opened fire, apparently with semi-automatic weapons, for about one minute. They then fled in a black SUV.
Police etc. rushed to the scene. At some point, the shooters’ vehicle was found, and a chase ensued. The chase ended, and there was a shootout. One of the shooters was killed. His body could be seen next to the SUV in a pool of blood with a gun nearby. The other shooter was in the bullet-riddled SUV, sitting in a passenger seat and badly wounded. A cop was lightly wounded in the shootout. A chase then ensued for the third suspect who seemed to be cornered in a mall the last I heard.
At last count, this country was experiencing an average of one mass shooting a day. That is absolutely insane for a country that is not at war. Are there any other countries on Earth not at war that experience at least one mass shooting a day? When you think about it that’s just stupid. That’s the only word for al these mass shootings. Stupid. Any country not at war that has at least one mass shooting a day is a stupid country.
I think this country is a very stupid country. In fact, we are one of the stupidest countries out there. Mass shootings every single day without a single step (as in gun control like every other sane country) being taken to try to stop or minimize them? Sheer idiocy.
So now we have to put up with worrying about idiots shooting up the place whenever we go just about anywhere. As if we didn’t have enough to worry about already.
The latest mass shooting shooting occurred in San Bernardino, which is part of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. This is a part of Southern California called the Inland Empire. It has long been known as a hot, dry area quite a ways inland from LA.
Out there in Inland Empire cities like Redlands, Riverside and San Berdoo as it is known locally one encounters some of the worst smog in the LA Basin. A lot of the smog produced in the area is apparently funneled back into the Inland Empire with onshore winds back into what amounts to basins surrounded by mountains.
The smog is so bad out there that you can actually see the smog particles floating in the air, you can taste the smog, feel it stinging your eyes and even feel it in your stomach where it gives you a stomachache after you swallow it. I know that all sounds nuts, but you can go out there yourselves and experience it if you do not believe me.
Supposedly LA’s smog has cleaned up quite a bit since I left in 1990. I am uncertain how much it has really cleaned up, and I would have to see it to believe it.
The area is very hot in the summer and pretty hot year-round for that matter. It was traditionally the home of very rightwing, redneck, working class Whites who often wore leather and rode motorcycles. There is also a fairly large White Trash element. Why these Whites are so rightwing is a mystery.
In the last 20 years, San Berdoo has gone from 20% to 70% Hispanic, so it is now one more of the many Hispanic cities in California. The Inland Empire is not a very attractive place, but there are some nice homes out by Redlands. It’s too hot to grow much of anything out there, but the region is a traditional citrus growing region for a long time now. Much of the citrus has been displaced by housing following a traditional pattern in Southern California for 50 years now.
The city of San Berdoo itself is a bit different from the other cities in the Empire, as it is at the far eastern edge of the inland valleys, and high mountains called the San Bernardino Mountains loom up all around the town.
The Strategic Role of the Bosphorus Straits and the Dardanelles linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean
[Editor’s Note: The closing of the Bosphorus Straits by Turkey would constitute an Act of War directed against the Russian Federation. A recent report by Sputnik states that in this regard:]
In times of war, the passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish government, according to the document.
From a legal perspective, Turkey has no legal grounds to create obstacles for Russian vessels carrying cargo, including military cargo, Russian lawyer Vladimir Morkovkin told RBK. Turkey can ban non-friendly vessels from navigating through the Straits only if at war, the expert explained.
After World War II, Ankara made several efforts to gradually strengthen its control over the Straits. In 1982, Turkey tried to unilaterally expand the regime of the Istanbul port over the entire area of the Straits. The decision was harshly criticized by neighboring countries, and Turkey stepped back.
We are at very dangerous crossroads. Russia’s maritime access to the Mediterranean is largely controlled by NATO countries and their allies (i.e. 1. Bosphorus and Dardanelles; 2. Suez canal, 3. Strait of Gibraltar)
GR Editor, Michel Chossudovsky, December 1, 2015)
* * *
Turkey has begun a de facto blockade of Russian naval vessels, preventing transit through the Dardanelles and the Strait of Bosporus, between the Black Sea and Mediterranean.
According to the AIS tracking system for the movement of maritime vessels, only Turkish vessels are moving along the Bosphorus, and in the Dardanelles there is no movement of any shipping at all.
At the same time, both from the Black Sea, and from the Mediterranean Sea, there is a small cluster of ships under the Russian flag, just sitting and waiting. The image below shows the situation with the ships using the GPS transponder onboard each vessel:
In addition, shipping inside the Black Sea from Novorossiisk and Sevastopol in the direction of the Bosphorus, no Russian vessels are moving. This indirectly confirms the a CNN statement that Turkey may have blocked the movement of Russian ships on the Dardanelles and the Strait of Bosporus.
There is a Treaty specifically covering the use of these waterways by nations of the world. That Treaty is the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits.
It is a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states. The terms of the convention have been the source of controversy over the years, most notably concerning the Soviet Union‘s military access to the Mediterranean Sea.
Signed on 20 July 1936 at the Montreux Palace in Switzerland, it permitted Turkey to remilitarize the Straits. It went into effect on 9 November 1936 and was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 11 December 1936. It is still in force today, with some amendments.
The Convention consists of 29 Articles, four annexes and one protocol. Articles 2–7 consider the passage of merchant ships. Articles 8–22 consider the passage of war vessels. The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is stated in articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides that “The High Contracting Parties recognize and affirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in the Straits”. Article 2 states that “In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag with any kind of cargo.”
The International Straits Commission was abolished, authorizing the full resumption of Turkish military control over the Straits and the refortification of the Dardanelles. Turkey was authorized to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorized to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey.
Turkey has now invoked its power, but has not publicly stated whether they are blocking Russian Naval Vessels because Turkey is “threatened with aggression” or whether Turkey considers itself to be “at war.” Last week, Turkey shot down a Russian military jet over Syria and this has caused a major rift between the two nations.
This latest development of blockading Russian naval vessels is a massive and terrifyingly dangerous development. Blockading Russia and preventing its Black Sea fleet from traveling to the rest of the world, or back to its home port, is something that will not sit well with the Russians.
Earlier today, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the deployment of 150,000 Russian troops and equipment into Syria, but then ALSO ordered the deployment of 7,000 additional Russian Troops, tanks, rocket launchers and artillery, to the Russian Border of Turkey at Armenia, with orders to be “fully combat ready.”
It is important to note two things:
1) Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as is the United States and most of Europe, AND;
2) Turkey took the first shot at Russia when they intentionally shot down a Russian jet last week.
It is important to remember these facts because, as a NATO member, Turkey can invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty which requires all NATO members to come to its defense if Turkey is “attacked.” So if Russia decides to fight back against Turkey downing its military jet, the Turks might call NATO and claim they’ve been “attacked” thereby calling-up NATO forces to go to war against Russia.
It bears remembering, however, that Turkey shot first. Turkey was the nation which “attacked.”
Before NATO and the world get dragged into a war between Russia and Turkey, the citizens of the world must be ready to remind our leaders that Turkey Shot First.
Why did the Turks shoot? Because Turkey has been allowing the terrorist group ISIS to sell the oil it has stolen from countries it is conquering. The oil is transported from the wells in countries where ISIS has seized power, is taken by truck to Turkey, and is then sold at cheap prices on the black market.
This black market selling results in over 1 Million dollars per DAY flowing into ISIS to keep it equipped and supplied for its ongoing terrorist activities. Only a fool would think that all this is going on through Turkey, without some Turkish officials having their hands out for money from the illegal oil sales. Put simply, Turkey appears to be in business with ISIS and Russia is harming that by attacking ISIS in Syria.
So Turkey shot down one of the Russian planes that was attacking ISIS. Russia is quite furious; with the Russian President stating the shoot down was “a stab in the back of Russia” and was carried out by “accomplices to terrorism.”
It would be shocking if NATO were to defend Turkey under such circumstances because by its actions, Turkey is providing material support to the terrorist group ISIS. For NATO to defend that would make all of us accomplices to terrorism.
The to-do about Turkey shooting down the Russian jet continues. The US recently said that their data shows that the Turkish view of events is correct and that the Russian jet did indeed violate Turkish airspace.
However, a group of Belgian physicists recently calculated that there is no way that the Turkish account can be correct based on the laws of physics. In other words, the Turks are lying.
It is probable that the Russian jet never even went into Turkish airspace at all. Further, it is also probable that no Russian jet has ever violated Turkish airspace. What probably happened on the occasions when Turkey was accusing the Russians of violating Turkish airspace was that the Russian jet flew within five miles of border. For years now, Turkey has said that its airspace begins five miles inside the Syrian border.
The navigator of the jet who was rescued insisted that the jet never violated Turkish airspace. He is probably telling the truth. The Russians have released radar maps proving their case. The Turks have also released maps supposedly proving their case.
There are problems with the Turks’ case.
First of all, it appears that there is no way that this downing could have taken place unless it was pre-planned. Indeed, the Turkish Vice President himself gave the order to take down the jet. There is no way that the VP could have been contacted in the supposed 17 seconds when the jet was over Turkish airspace in order to give the shootdown order. That’s just not possible. The only way that could have been true is if the Turks had plotted to down the jet as a pre-planned attack.
Indeed a former high ranking commander in the US Air Command stated that the only way that that attack could have happened at all was if it was pre-planned because he said 17 seconds was too little time to make a decision to down a jet. In other words, a top US NORAD official insists that the attack was pre-planned.
The US says that the Russian jet did indeed violate Turkish airspace based on US evidence (not presented). They also said that the jet was engaged over Turkish airspace. There is no way on Earth that that could be true. The jet was engaged instead 3-4 miles west of where it supposedly crossed the border, and when it was hit, it was 2.5 miles inside Syria.
There is no way that the missile could have been fired when the jet was over Turkey and ended up hitting the jet four miles away 2.5 miles inside Syria. The only conclusion based on where the plane was hit is that the Russian jet was simply shot down inside Syria – 2.5 miles inside Syria for that matter. Even if the Russian jet did violate Turkish airspace (probably not even true), it is never proper to fire on a jet that violated your airspace long after it left your airspace.
Considering the jet was downed 2.5 miles into Syria, the suggestion is that it never violated Turkish airspace in the first place and was simply shot down over Syria, and then a lie was invented that the jet had been over Turkey instead.
The Turks said that they gave many warnings to the Russian jet. However, even if the jet was only over Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, there is no way that the Turks could have given all of those warnings in only 17 seconds. It makes no sense. Anyway, the navigator said that they never received any warnings. He is probably telling the truth.
Even if the jet did violate Turkish airspace (probably not even true), the proper response is not to shoot it down. Planes violate other countries’ airspace all the time. For instance, Turkey violated Greek airspace 2,244 times last year. You need to decide if the plane’s intent is hostile or not. A jet momentarily going over the edge of your airspace for 17 seconds in what looks like an inadvertent move is never reasonable cause to shoot down a jet.
Even if the Turks did give warnings for five whole minutes (How could they give warnings for five minutes when the jet was only over Turkey for 17 seconds?), you are not supposed to shoot down a jet just because it is not picking up or heeding your warnings. In that cases, the Turkish jet could have paralleled the Russian jet. If the Russian jet was really over Turkey, the proper response would have been to escort the Russian jet out of the country, not to shoot it down.
Turkey would have done something so crazy and stupid unless they had the go-ahead from the US and NATO. The Arab press is now reporting that Obama gave the green light for Turkey to shoot down the Russian jet when he met with Erdogan in Turkey just recently. This story is probably correct.
The real reason that the jet was shot down is probably based on a number of factors.
First of all, for the past 3-4 days, Russian jets had been bombing a Turkmen jihadi group armed by both the CIA and Turkey that fights in this area which is the home to many Turkmen villages. Turkey regards the Syrian Turkmen as “Turks” as if they were citizens of Turkey itself. That Turkmen unit is armed and supplied by Erdogan, and Turkish officers and fighters are all mixed in with them.
In other words, that Turkmen jihadi group is Turkey’s baby. The Russians were bombing Turkmen who Turkey regards as fellow Turks and its de facto citizens, attacking the very force that Turkey has been raising by hand over time.
The Turks were growing increasingly furious over that few days of Russian attacks on the Turkmen jihadi group. The last warning the day before the jet shootdown had been ominous.
In addition, Russia had started bombing ISIS’s oil tanker trucks a few days before. Turkey profits greatly from the sale of ISIS oil. The ISIS-Turkey oil trade is run by none other than Erdogan’s brother himself. Support for ISIS is a family business in the Erdogan family, as Erdogan’s sister runs a hospital near the border that is dedicated to treating wounded ISIS fighters. The Russian bombing of ISIS’ oil business really hit the Turks where it counts.
The US probably had other reasons to encourage Turkey to shoot down the jet and start a rift between Turkey and Russia. There is a project to run Russian gas down through Turkey and the Black Sea to eastern Europe and then up to Austria. This project is called the South Stream, and the US has been anxiously trying to kill this project for some time now.
The US may also be trying one more time to deprive the Russians of the only warm water access for their Navy fleet as we did with the Crimea takeover by hostile Ukrainian Nazis determined to kick the Russians to of their Sevastopol seaport, their only warm water port. In order to salvage their desperately needed warm water port, Russia annexed Crimea, which had always been a part of Russia anyway. Annexing Crimea was an absolute necessity for the Russians.
Along the same lines, Turkey controls the vital Straits of Bosporus which is Russia’s only way to get out to the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, control over this strait is one of the main reasons why no one wants to make the Turks too mad. They could always close off that strait, and the world economy and especially the Russian economy would be harmed. Also Russia would lose access to its warm water port again because even if Russia retained the port at Crimea, it would do no good if Russian ships could not go through the Straits of Bosporus to get to the Mediterranean.
There is a project to run Russian gas down through Turkey and the Black Sea to eastern Europe and then up to Austria. This project is called the South Stream, and the US has been anxiously trying to kill this project for some time now.
The US is furious that Russia is trying to run a pipeline up to Europe to sell the Europeans gas, and we will walk through Hell and high water to try to stop this project. America’s hatred for the South Stream is twofold.
First, the US is determined to destroy Russia’s economy any way it can. Cutting off a gas pipeline is a good way to do that.
Second, the US hates the idea of Europe getting hooked on Russian gas. This makes the Europeans not want to fight Russia much since they do not want to alienate their gas supplier. The problem is that the Europeans do not have many alternatives when it comes to gas. They either buy gas from Russia, or they buy gas from Russia.
At first the South Stream was scheduled to go through Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians were ready to agree to it until they came under tremendous pressure from the US, and they nixed the deal.
Then the project shifted over to the Balkans. It would go through Greece and up through the Balkans to Austria.
Regime changer Victoria Nuland (R-Tel Aviv) whose husband is neocon brain trust Robert Kagan (R-Tel Aviv), the same Ms. Nuland who plotted the nefarious Nazi coup in the Ukraine that caused so much death and chaos, quickly went to work in Macedonia trying to set off another color revolution to throw out the government there which had agreed to let the South Stream run through its land.
There were some rowdy demonstrations as Nuland tried to do another Maidan overthrow of the government with crowds in the streets or a coup.
This attempt fortunately failed, so the last chance to stop South Stream was to throw a wedge between Russia and Turkey because all South Stream routes have to go through Turkey. By causing a huge rift between Turkey and Russia, the US thinks it is killing South Stream for the third time.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recently held a commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the squashing of UN resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. It was passed in 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions). The festive event this year was attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry and head of the Israeli Labour Party and Zionist Union Isaac Herzog, son of Chaim Herzog, president of Israel from 1983 to 1993, and star of the 1975 UN session.
The 1975 vote took place approximately one year after resolution 3237 granted the PLO “observer status”, following Yasser Arafat’s “olive branch” speech to the General Assembly in November 1974. It succeeded only because the Soviet Union and its allies were there to support the Arab and Islamic majority countries.
It was revoked in December 1991 by UN resolution 46/86. At the commemoration this year, Ban Ki-moon recalled Chaim Herzog’s words in 1975, “I appeal to the community of nations to always act to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.” Such nice platitudes coming from the Israeli ambassador—community, principles, tolerance, peace…
It is odd that this year’s festivities actually celebrate the passing of the resolution, rather than its demise, commemorating the chutzpah of Israeli UN representative Herzog, who stole the show, recounting how magnanimous Israel is with its Arab citizens, who apparently held the same rights as Jews, worked in border and police defense forces, were elected to parliament, studied at universities…
He pointed to Arabs coming from elsewhere for medical treatment, and to “the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country.” The UN ambassador finished his tirade by ripping up the resolution and defiantly stating he would have UN Avenues in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv renamed Zionism Avenues.
Herzog didn’t mention how traditionally Jews lived freely under Muslim rule and often served Muslim leaders as advisers, how Arab anger today is directly due to Israel’s murderous, illegal actions against the rightful citizens of what was once the Roman province of Syria Palaestina. He didn’t mention the millions of Palestinians denied their basic rights because Israel is apparently free of racism.
At least the 1975 gathering had some punch. There was no substance in the commemoration in 2015. Kerry waffled, despite a weeks-long wave of violence that has claimed the lives of at least 77 Palestinians along with 10 Israelis. No mention of that. He said that a two-state solution in the Middle East was “not an impossible dream” but would require courage. Yawn.
Kerry called the 1975 resolution “ominous” because it gave “a global license to hate” the state of Israel. But then “hate” covers just about any word of criticism of Israel. After all, election fever is rising in the US and the Israel lobby is alive and well.
Bush Senior’s Half Truths
It is more instructive to deconstruct the speech by US President HW Bush, who introduced the UN motion overturning resolution 3379 in 1991, which he said “mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. To equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history.”
He was half correct. Zionism is an idea, one that turned into a policy of racial exclusion and victimization of the Palestinian natives, whose land and property the new immigrants stole, even as they conducted a state policy of terror against the natives. Bush made no explanation of why Zionism is not a policy. But the Soviet voice was gone by 1991; only the US voice was heard defending the pious hope that Israel would one day make peace with the Palestinians based on the original 1947 UN Resolution 181 to partition the territory.
Bush’s claim that Zionism is not a policy of racism simply flies in the face of reality. But then the US itself was founded on an idea much like Zionism. The Puritans, Quakers and many other religious groups immigrated intending to establish an ideal Christian society modeled on the Bible, an idea which also was a policy of genocide of the American natives.
The 17th philosopher Francis Bacon penned a utopian novel New Atlantis based on his enthusiastic support for establishing the British colonies in North America, depicting the creation of a utopian land where “generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendor, piety and public spirit” are the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of the mythical Bensalem.
The idea of a “new Jerusalem” is the bedrock of the US idea.
Even such a respected philosopher was able to disregard the racist policy of genocide against the American natives in the name of “generosity and enlightenment etc.” No one noticed that, from the start, that the idea of the US (Bensalem) was a racist idea, just as its policies were. Only in the 19th century did international opprobrium finally push the US to abolish its most glaring racist policy—slavery.
But by then, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine was already being mooted by British politicians such as Lord Shaftsbury, and Israel was finally forced down the UN throat by FDR and Truman. For Shaftsbury et al, it was merely a logical development of western ‘civilization‘.
Bush lauded the crushing of the racism resolution in 1991 as “a real chance to fulfill the UN Charter’s ambition of working ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’.” Yet he was unable to see that the emperor (himself) and his offspring were wearing no clothes, that it is Israel that is the scourge of war, the violator of human rights and human dignity.
Bush stated that the UN “cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel’s right to exist.” Again a half truth. No one intended to wipe Israel off the map, as long as it was a nation that followed international norms, in particular human rights of the peoples who live there or who will return there from refugee camps when a peaceful solution to the stand-off is agreed. But this is only possible if we address Bush’s other half truth that lies at the heart of Zionism, both as idea and policy.
Bush’s other mistake was to define the State of Israel as “a home for the Jewish people”. This makes Israel racist by definition, just as Hitler identified Germany as the home of the Aryan people, a similarly vague, racist definition of the state.
Bush’s Lesson: Don’t Cross Israel
There is a bitter irony in Bush’s kowtowing to Israel in 1991. In September he had asked Congress to delay Israel’s request for $10 billion in loan guarantees to help settle Soviet Jews, trying to force Israel to stop its illegal settlement construction and negotiate a real peace. He no doubt was recalling how Eisenhower had made Israel bend to the US game plan in 1956. Ford/ Kissinger/ Carter had too, though just barely in the 1970s, curbing somewhat Israel’s colonial ambitions. Both times, ironically, US leaders relied on the Soviet ‘threat’ to give them some backbone.
But ‘in victory, defeat’. The Soviet ‘threat’, providing the US some leverage with Israel, was no more, and in the meantime, the Israel lobby in Washington had become too powerful for a president to counter. The Zionists were in no mood to swallow their pride and obey a newly holier-than-thou imperial Washington.
Bush senior found he had no allies for his plan to bring Israel into line. He scurried to the UN to burnish his credentials, but to no avail. The Israel lobby mobilized, found their ideal candidate in Bill Clinton, and Bush suddenly was being attacked in the media. Incessant negative publicity as election day approached did the trick. He lost his re-election bid, going from a 90% approval rate following the Iraq invasion to 37% on election day.
It is time for a new resolution 3379, something with teeth that will wake Israel up and push it to admit its sins. There is no hope to find a sponsor in Washington. However, the support for Palestinians struggling for their rights continues to grow. The EU, BDS and others boycott settlement goods are having their effect. Israel‘s neighbors continue to resist. As US power wanes, there is hope that the UN will once again find some backbone.
These figures are extremely controversial, and in fact, the man who accumulated them is one of the most vilified men in the West. However, all of his conclusions are from legitimate peer reviewed medical journals and books. The people who jump up and down and yell so much about these findings are encouraged to go out and come up with some figures of their own.
These figures appear to be good at least for this particular time period. One argument might be that gay men’s sex practices have changed over the past 30 years, and therefore, these figures are no longer viable. That is an interesting hypothesis, but it remains to be seen if it is true or not. Those who claim that these studies are outdated are encouraged to go out and find some more updated studies so we can compare them to these older results. My gut feeling is that gay men’s behavior has not changed very much.
I am not sure why I am putting this stuff out there, but it’s nice to know such things. It’s also a good counterpoint to the “Gays are just like straights except for the PIV (penis in vagina ) sex.” Obviously that is not true at all.
You can do whatever you want to with this figures – I have no particular agenda here except to disagree with the SJW’s who insist that homosexual sex is the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is clearly not the case.
Ever Last yr. Last mo. Last 6 mos.
Oral-penile 99.5 92 67
Anal-penile 93 94 97
Oral-anal 87 63 79 60
Public/orgy sex 82
S/M B/D 37
Urine sex 26
Minor sex 23.5
Shit eating 6
Based on six different surveys conducted from 1977 to 1991 in the US, Denmark, London, Sydney. The surveys were done a while back – the median year for the surveys was 1984.
It is true that these figures come from the reviled Paul Cameron. Cameron is very much a homophobe all right. The PC crowd and the SJW’s have trashed his figures to Kingdom Come. However, all of Cameron’s figures come from peer reviewed studied studies in medical journals and books (see below). The SPLC in particular has trashed all of his findings, and the American Psychological Association has disassociated itself from Cameron and thrown him out of the organization. All of this apparently because he is coming up with the wrong conclusions.
As usual with these types, it is put up or shut up. While they have completely trashed Cameron’s findings, they have never shown how or why they are wrong, and worse, they have never shown any newer findings that indicates how Cameron is wrong.
Until further studies indicate that Cameron is wrong, his figures must stand.
Beral, V. et al. 1992. Risk of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Sexual Practices Associated with Fecal Contact in Homosexual or Bisexual Men with AIDS. Lancet.
Biggar, R. J. 1984. Low T-lymphocyte Ratios in Homosexual Men. Journal of the American Medical Association. 7/18/91. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Elford, J. et al. 1992. Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Insertive Rimming. Lancet.
Jaffee, H. et al. 1983. National Case-control Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma. Annals Of Internal Medicine.
Jay, K. & Young, A. 1979. The Gay Report. NY: Summit.
Quinn, T. C. et al. 1983. The Polymicrobial Origin of Intestinal Infection in Homosexual Men. New England Journal of Medicine.
This is an excellent article that lays out what I had always expected, that what everyone believes, that the Syrian Civil War started when “Assad” opened fire on peaceful protests, is a great big fat lie.
Here is what really happened:
In February, a true peaceful reform movement began in Syria. This movement had begun as early as 2005 and involved secular protesters opposing corruption and the Baath Party’s monopoly on power (Wikstrom 2011; Otrakji 2012). This was a legitimate movement.
These protests continued for some time, possibly a month, with little drama. The protesters made some early demands, and Assad quickly tried to appease them by making a number of the changes that they had asked for. But by the time he had made the changes, the protests had been hijacked by Islamists who were not appeased by the changes and insisted that the regime must go (al-Khalidi 2011).
Only one month went by before some teenagers were arrested in Deraa by local authorities for writing the North African-influenced graffiti, “The people want to overthrow the regime.” They were reportedly abused by the local Deraa police. Assad intervened, the governor was fired and the teenagers were released.
There were reports early on that either these or some other teenagers had been tortured to death by “Assad.” Obviously these boys were not tortured to death. There is a confirmed report of one teenage boy who was indeed tortured to death which was widely blamed on “Assad,” but he was later found to have been killed by the armed opposition.
On March 17-18, violence broke out at protests in Deraa. The Western media says that peaceful protests in Deraa were attacked by government snipers on rooftops who started shooting the peaceful protesters. This is the line that everyone knows about. However, it is completely untrue.
What really happened is laid out below. There were protests in Deraa on these days along with large pro-government protests – the presence of large pro-government protests is another lie that is spread by omission by the Western press – the media says that all early protests were anti-government, however, even from the very start, the large anti-government protests were almost inevitably met by equally large pro-government protests.
Actually, the police at these rallies in Deraa were armed with only riot gear. Army forces were present, but they were not at the rally itself, instead they were on the outskirts of town. At some point during the rally, all Hell broke loose. Unknown snipers began firing from the Al-Omari Mosque. It is important to note that these mysterious snipers opened fire on both protesters and police.
Yes, a number of protesters were indeed killed and injured at these rallies, but quite a few police were also killed an wounded by these very same snipers. It is absolutely not possible that “Assad” would have mysterious snipers open fire on both protesters and police, killing both.
Why would “Assad” open fire on his own police, killing and wounding them? It is senseless. There is an interview with a Syrian police officer who was at that rally on Youtube in which he states that the police had only riot gear and that snipers shot both police and demonstrators. He states the numb er of killed and wounded among the police.
It was later determined after police raided the al-Omari Mosque that the snipers were Muslim Brotherhood people firing from the roof of the mosque with weapons that had been smuggled in from Saudi Arabia.
In fact, shipments of these arms had been seized at the Iraq-Syrian border by border guards earlier. They had been bought in Baghdad and were on their way to Muslim Brotherhood people in Syria (Reuters 2011). The weapons were paid for by Saudi Arabia. It was these weapons shipments that were later used in the shootings at the demonstrations.
You notice that snipers opened fire on both police and protesters. This exact same thing happened in Ukraine when Maidan people paid snipers to come from Lithuania and open fire on both the Berkut police and the demonstrators.
As soon as the shooting started, other violence ensued. The same day that the mysterious snipers opened fire from the al-Omari Mosque, Baath Party Headquarters and the local police station were burned down (YaLibnan 2011, Queenan 2011). Medical teams came to the site to help injured protesters and police but were fired on by by the MB snipers. Members of an ambulance team and a doctor were killed.
Even several days after these attacks, Assad was trying to calm things down. Assad issued an order that live ammunition should not be used even if security forces themselves were coming under attack.
Funerals for demonstrators followed the killings in Deraa. At every one of these funerals, mysterious snipers opened fire on both police and demonstrators (Maktabi 2011). Once again, why would “Assad” kill and wound his own police officers?
Early reports mostly from the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera stated that it was snipers working for the government who fired on the crowds (Al Jazeera 2011b). However, these reports made no sense, as Syrian police would never shoot at their own people, and anyway, they were only armed with riot gear. The Western press soon picked up on the line that it was “Assad” who was shooting at the protesters and police.
Saudi government officials later confirmed that the Saudi government has sent arms to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and that Saudi arms had been used by shooters at the al-Omari Mosque (Truth Syria 2012).
Only a week later, the “peaceful protesters” were already heavily armed and were carrying out attacks on the army. An army patrol was ambushed outside Deraa at the beginning of April only two weeks after the Deraa events, and 19 Syrian troops were killed (Narwani 2014). However, Assad ordered this attack covered up because he did not want to inflame tensions even further. For sometime after that, the government refused to comment on deaths of security forces.
The problem with the government cover up of security forces’ deaths was that while this cover up was going on, the Western media was reporting all of the deaths in this early conflict as “protesters” killed by the army(Khalidi 2011). In other words, if armed rebels killed 19 Syrian army troops at an ambush, the entire Western press would report this as “19 peaceful protesters were killed by the Syrian army.”
All through April, 88 Syrian troops were killed all over Syria by armed rebels. The government covered up all of these killings, and every one of these deaths was reported by the Western press as “Syrian troops killing peaceful protesters.” The Western media blacked out all of these reports and simply refused to acknowledge them.
Reports soon came out, spread by the CIA-linked Human Rights Watch, that Syrian soldiers were being shot by other Syrian troops for refusing to fire on protesters (HRW 2011b). Even the extremely biased Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a one-man operation run by a Syrian exile out of London, said that reports of Syrian forces killing their own for refusing to fire on protesters were false. Nevertheless, the Western media was awash with reports of Syrian troops firing on their own who refused to obey orders to open fire on protesters.
The armed rebels soon set provocateurs loose to destroy and damage Sunni mosques throughout Syria. One jihadist from Tunisia admitted that he had been hired by the rebels to write graffiti on Sunni mosques saying, “There is no God by Bashar” (Eretz Zen 2014). This is a sacrilegious slogan made in an attempt to encourage Sunni soldiers in the Syrian army to defect. This interview can be found on Youtube.
By this time, there was a war on. Quite a few on both sides, both rebels and the Syrian army, were suffering casualties. Every day rebel sources gave a figure for the number killed that day with no explanation. Most of these deaths were of armed rebels and Syrian army forces, but they were all reported by the opposition as “peaceful protesters killed by the Syrian army.” The Western media followed suit and did the same, reporting all casualties of armed fighters on both sides as peaceful civilian protesters.
Since all of the many casualties among the armed groups were reported in the West as peaceful protesters, US officials began making loud demands that Assad step down because supposedly he was the one slaughtering all these peaceful protesters (Shaikh 2011, FOX News 2011).
For the next several months, every time a protest took place, armed Islamists appeared in the crowd and soon opened fire on security forces (Jaber 2011). Security forces would often fire back at the armed elements in the crowd and there would often be killed and wounded on both sides.
A vicious sectarian element was present in the protests from early on. By May, there were already chants of “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave!” (Blanford 2011). Soon this sectarian chant was heard at every protest.
For the next year, Human Rights Watch (the voice of the CIA) and other liars reported that the vast majority of the casualties were peaceful protesters (Clinton 2011). In fact by early 2012, a good report showed that of 5,000 casualties, 50% were security forces (OHCHR 2012: 2, Narwani 2014).
The lie was spread, spearheaded by Human Rights Watch, the protests had been overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011 (HRW 2011a, HRW 2012), when supposedly so many peaceful protesters had been killed that the protest movement was forced to take up arms to defend itself (Allaf 2012).
A Big Lie had been laid down. Even today, the vast majority of people who know about the Syrian Civil War say that the war started when the Syrian government opened fire on repeatedly on peaceful protesters, killing so many of these unarmed innocents that eventually by September 2011, the peaceful protesters were forced to take up arms as they had no other choice.
History of US-NATO’s “Covert War” on Syria: Daraa March 2011
Another Islamist Insurrection
By Prof. Tim Anderson
Global Research, November 29, 2015
The following text is Chapter IV of Professor Anderson’s forthcoming book entitled The Dirty War on Syria, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2016 (forthcoming).
“The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011”- Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington
“I have seen from the beginning armed protesters in those demonstrations … they were the first to fire on the police. Very often the violence of the security forces comes in response to the brutal violence of the armed insurgents” – the late Father Frans Van der Lugt, January 2012, Homs Syria
“The claim that armed opposition to the government has begun only recently is a complete lie. The killings of soldiers, police and civilians, often in the most brutal circumstances, have been going on virtually since the beginning”. – Professor Jeremy Salt, October 2011, Ankara Turkey
A double story began on the Syrian conflict, at the outset of the armed violence in 2011 in the southern border town of Daraa. The first story comes from independent witnesses in Syria, such as the late Father Frans Van der Lugt in Homs. They say that armed men infiltrated the early political reform demonstrations to shoot at both police and civilians.
This violence came from sectarian Islamists. The second comes from the Islamist groups (‘rebels’) and their western backers. They claim there was ‘indiscriminate’ violence from Syrian security forces to repress political rallies and that the ‘rebels’ grew out of a secular political reform movement.
Careful study of the independent evidence, however, shows that the Washington-backed ‘rebel’ story, while widespread, was part of a strategy to delegitimize the Syrian government, with the aim of fomenting ‘regime change’. To understand this it is necessary to observe that prior to the armed insurrection of March 2011 there were shipments of arms from Saudi Arabia to Islamists at the al Omari mosque. It is also useful to review the earlier Muslim Brotherhood insurrection at Hama in 1982 because of the parallel myths that have grown up around both insurrections.
US intelligence (DIA 1982) and the late British author Patrick Seale (1988) give independent accounts of what happened at Hama. After years of violent sectarian attacks by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, by mid-1980 President Hafez al Assad had ‘broken the back’ of their sectarian rebellion which aimed to impose a Salafi-Islamic state. One final coup plot was exposed, and the Brotherhood ‘felt pressured into initiating’ an uprising in their stronghold of Hama. Seale describes the start of that violence in this way:
At 2am on the night of 2-3 February 1982 an army unit combing the old city fell into an ambush. Roof top snipers killed perhaps a score of soldiers … [Brotherhood leader] Abu Bakr [Umar Jawwad] gave the order for a general uprising … hundreds of Islamist fighters rose … by the morning some seventy leading Ba’athists had been slaughtered and the triumphant guerrillas declared the city ‘liberated’ (Seale 1988: 332).
However the Army responded with a huge force of about 12,000, and the battle raged for three weeks. It was a foreign-backed civil war with some defections from the army. Seale continues:
As the tide turned slowly in the government’s favour, the guerrillas fell back into the old quarters … after heavy shelling, commandos and party irregulars supported by tanks moved in … many civilians were slaughtered in the prolonged mopping up, whole districts razed (Seale 1988: 333).
Two months later a US intelligence report said: ‘The total casualties for the Hama incident probably number about 2,000. This includes an estimated 300 to 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s elite ‘Secret Apparatus’ (DIA 1982: 7).
Seale recognizes that the Army also suffered heavy losses. At the same time, ‘large numbers died in the hunt for the gunmen … government sympathizers estimating a mere 3,000 and critics as many as 20,000 … a figure of 5,000 to 10,000 could be close to the truth’ He adds:
‘The guerrillas were formidable opponents. They had a fortune in foreign money … [and] no fewer than 15,000 machine guns’ (Seale 1988: 335). Subsequent Muslim Brotherhood accounts have inflated the casualties, reaching up to ‘40,000 civilians’, thus attempting to hide their insurrection and sectarian massacres by claiming that Hafez al Assad had carried out a ‘civilian massacre’ (e.g. Nassar 2014).
The then Syrian President blamed a large scale foreign conspiracy for the Hama insurrection. Seale observes that Hafez was ‘not paranoical’, as many US weapons were captured and foreign backing had come from several US collaborators: King Hussayn of Jordan, Lebanese Christian militias (the Israeli-aligned ‘Guardians of the Cedar’) and Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Seale 1988: 336-337).
The Hama insurrection helps us understand the Daraa violence because, once again in 2011, we saw armed Islamists using rooftop sniping against police and government officials, drawing in the armed forces, only to cry ‘civilian massacre’ when they and their collaborators came under attack from the Army. Although the US, through its allies, played an important part in the Hama insurrection, when it was all over US intelligence dryly observed that: ‘the Syrians are pragmatists who do not want a Muslim Brotherhood government’ (DIA 1982: vii).
In the case of Daraa and in the attacks that moved to Homs and surrounding areas in April 2011, the clearly stated aim was once again to topple the secular or ‘infidel-Alawi’ regime. The front-line US collaborators were Saudi Arabia and Qatar and then Turkey. The head of the Syrian Brotherhood, Muhammad Riyad Al-Shaqfa, issued a statement on 28 March which left no doubt that the group’s aim was sectarian.
The enemy was ‘the secular regime,’ and Brotherhood members ‘have to make sure that the revolution will be pure Islamic, and with that no other sect would have a share of the credit after its success’ (Al-Shaqfa 2011). While playing down the initial role of the Brotherhood, Sheikho confirms that it ‘went on to punch above its actual weight on the ground during the uprising … [due] to Turkish-Qatari support’, and to its general organizational capacity (Sheikho 2013).
By the time there was a ‘Free Syrian Army Supreme Military Council’ in 2012 (more a weapons conduit than any sort of army command), it was said to be two-thirds dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood (Draitser 2012). Other foreign Salafi-Islamist groups quickly joined this ‘Syrian Revolution’. A US intelligence report in August 2012, contrary to Washington’s public statements about ‘moderate rebels’, said:
The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later ISIS] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria … AQI supported the Syrian Opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media (DIA 2012).
In February 2011 there was popular agitation in Syria to some extent influenced by the events in Egypt and Tunisia. There were anti-government and pro-government demonstrations and a genuine political reform movement which for several years had agitated against corruption and the Ba’ath Party monopoly. A 2005 report referred to ‘an array of reform movements slowly organizing beneath the surface’ (Ghadry 2005), and indeed the ‘many faces’ of a Syrian opposition, much of it non-Islamist, had been agitating since about that same time (Sayyid Rasas 2013).
These political opposition groups deserve attention in another discussion (see Chapter Five). However only one section of that opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafists, was linked to the violence that erupted in Daraa. Large anti-government demonstrations began, to be met with huge pro-government demonstrations.
In early March some teenagers in Daraa were arrested for graffiti that had been copied from North Africa ‘the people want to overthrow the regime’. It was reported that they were abused by local police, President Bashar al Assad intervened, the local governor was sacked, and the teenagers were released (Abouzeid 2011).
Yet the Islamist insurrection was underway, taking cover under the street demonstrations.
On 11 March, several days before the violence broke out in Daraa, there were reports that Syrian forces had seized ‘a large shipment of weapons and explosives and night-vision goggles … in a truck coming from Iraq’. The truck was stopped at the southern Tanaf crossing, close to Jordan. The Syrian Government news agency SANA said the weapons were intended ‘for use in actions that affect Syria’s internal security and spread unrest and chaos.’
Pictures showed ‘dozens of grenades and pistols as well as rifles and ammunition belts’. The driver said the weapons had been loaded in Baghdad and he had been paid $5,000 to deliver them to Syria (Reuters 2011). Despite this interception, arms did reach Daraa, a border town of about 150,000 people.
This is where the ‘western-rebel’ and the independent stories diverge, and diverge dramatically. The western media consensus was that protesters burned and trashed government offices, and then ‘provincial security forces opened fire on marchers, killing several’ (Abouzeid 2011). After that, ‘protesters’ staged demonstrations in front of the al-Omari mosque but were in turn attacked.
The Syrian government, on the other hand, said there were unprovoked attacks on security forces, killing police and civilians, along with the burning of government offices. There was foreign corroboration of this account. While its headline blamed security forces for killing ‘protesters’, the British Daily Mail (2011) showed pictures of AK47 rifles and hand grenades that security forces had recovered after storming the al-Omari mosque.
The paper noted reports that ‘an armed gang’ had opened fire on an ambulance, killing ‘a doctor, a paramedic and a policeman’. Media channels in neighboring countries did report on the killing of Syrian police on 17-18 March.
On 21 March a Lebanese news report observed that ‘Seven policemen were killed during clashes between the security forces and protesters in Syria’ (YaLibnan 2011), while an Israel National News report said ‘Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed … and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched’ (Queenan 2011). These police had been targeted by rooftop snipers.
Even in these circumstances the Government was urging restraint and attempting to respond to the political reform movement. President Assad’s adviser, Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, told a news conference that the President had ordered ‘that live ammunition should not be fired, even if the police, security forces or officers of the state were being killed’.
Assad proposed to address the political demands such as the registration of political parties, removing emergency rules and allowing greater media freedoms (al-Khalidi 2011). None of that seemed to either interest or deter the Islamists.
Several reports, including video reports, observed rooftop snipers firing at crowds and police during funerals of those already killed. It was said to be ‘unclear who was firing at whom’ (Al Jazeera 2011a), as ‘an unknown armed group on rooftops shot at protesters and security forces’ (Maktabi 2011).
Yet Al Jazeera (2011b) owned by the Qatari monarchy, soon strongly suggested that that the snipers were pro-government. ‘President Bashar al Assad has sent thousands of Syrian soldiers and their heavy weaponry into Derra for an operation the regime wants nobody in the word to see’, the Qatari channel said. However the Al Jazeera suggestion that secret pro-government snipers were killing ‘soldiers and protesters alike’ was illogical and out of sequence. The armed forces came to Daraa precisely because police had been shot and killed.
Saudi Arabia, a key US regional ally, had armed and funded extremist Salafist Sunni sects to move against the secular government. Saudi official Anwar Al-Eshki later confirmed to BBC television that his country had sent arms to Daraa and to the al-Omari mosque (Truth Syria 2012). From exile in Saudi Arabia, Salafi Sheikh Adnan Arour called for a holy war against the liberal Alawi Muslims, who were said to dominate the Syrian government: ‘by Allah we shall mince [the Alawites] in meat grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs’ (MEMRITV 2011).
The Salafist aim was a theocratic state or caliphate. The genocidal slogan ‘Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave’ became widespread, a fact reported by the North American media as early as May 2011 (e.g. Blanford 2011). Islamists from the FSA Farouq Brigade would soon act on these threats (Crimi 2012). Canadian analyst Michel Chossudovsky (2011) observed: ‘The deployment of armed forces including tanks in Daraa [was] directed against an organized armed insurrection, which has been active in the border city since March 17-18.”
After those first few days in Daraa the killing of Syrian security forces continued but went largely unreported outside Syria. Nevertheless, independent analyst Sharmine Narwani wrote about the scale of this killing in early 2012 and again in mid-2014. An ambush and massacre of soldiers took place near Daraa in late March or early April. An army convoy was stopped by an oil slick on a valley road between Daraa al-Mahata and Daraa al-Balad, and the trucks were machine gunned.
Estimates of soldier deaths from government and opposition sources ranged from 18 to 60. A Daraa resident said these killings were not reported because: ‘At that time, the government did not want to show they are weak and the opposition did not want to show they are armed’. Anti-Syrian Government blogger Nizar Nayouf records this massacre as taking place in the last week of March. Another anti-Government writer, Rami Abdul Rahman (based in England and calling himself the ‘Syrian Observatory of Human Rights’) says:
‘It was on the first of April and about 18 or 19 security forces … were killed’ (Narwani 2014). Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad, himself a resident of Daraa, confirmed that: ‘this incident was hidden by the government … as an attempt not to antagonize or not to raise emotions and to calm things down – not to encourage any attempt to inflame emotions which may lead to escalation of the situation’ (Narwani 2014).
Yet the significance of denying armed anti-Government killings was that in the western media all deaths were reported as (a) victims of the Army and (b) civilians. For well over six months, whenever a body count was mentioned in the international media, it was usually considered acceptable to suggest these were all ‘protesters’ killed by the Syrian Army.
For example, a Reuters report on 24 March said Daraa’s main hospital had received ‘the bodies of at least 37 protesters killed on Wednesday’ (Khalidi 2011). Notice that all the dead had become ‘protesters’ despite earlier reports on the killing of a number of police and health workers.
Another nineteen soldiers were gunned down on 25 April, also near Daraa. Narwani obtained their names and details from Syria’s Defence Ministry and corroborated these details from another document from a non-government source. Throughout April 2011, she calculates that eighty-eight Syrian soldiers were killed ‘by unknown shooters in different areas across Syria’ (Narwani 2014).
She went on to refute claims that the soldiers killed were ‘defectors’ shot by the Syrian army for refusing to fire on civilians. Human Rights Watch, referring to interviews with 50 unnamed ‘activists’, claimed that soldiers killed at this time were all ‘defectors’, murdered by the Army (HRW 2011b).
Yet the funerals of loyal officers shown on the internet at that time were distinct. Even Rami Abdul Rahman (the SOHR), keen to blame the Army for killing civilians, said ‘this game of saying the Army is killing defectors for leaving – I never accepted this’ (Narwani 2014). Nevertheless the highly charged reports were confusing.
The violence spread north with the assistance of Islamist fighters from Lebanon, reaching Baniyas and areas around Homs. On 10 April nine soldiers were shot in a bus ambush in Baniyas. In Homs, on April 17, General Abdo Khodr al-Tallawi was killed with his two sons and a nephew, and Syrian commander Iyad Kamel Harfoush was gunned down near his home.
Two days later, off-duty Colonel Mohammad Abdo Khadour was killed in his car (Narwani 2014). North American commentator Joshua Landis (2011a) reported the death of his wife’s cousin, one of the soldiers in Baniyas. These were not the only deaths but I mention them because most western media channels maintain the fiction to this day that there was no Islamist insurrection and the ‘peaceful protesters’ did not pick up arms until September 2011.
Al Jazeera, the principal Middle East media channel backing the Muslim Brotherhood, blacked out these attacks and also the reinforcement provided by armed foreigners.
Former Al Jazeera journalist Ali Hashem was one of many who resigned from the Qatar-owned station (RT 2012), complaining of deep bias over their presentation of the violence in Syria. Hashem had footage of armed men arriving from Lebanon, but this was censored by his Qatari managers. ‘In a resignation letter I was telling the executive … it was like nothing was happening in Syria.’ He thought the ‘Libyan revolution’ was the turning point for Al Jazeera, marking the end of its standing as a credible media group (Hashem 2012).
Provocateurs were at work. Tunisian jihadist ‘Abu Qusay’ later admitted he had been a prominent ‘Syrian rebel’ charged with ‘destroying and desecrating Sunni mosques’, including by scrawling the graffiti ‘There is no God but Bashar’, a blasphemy to devout Muslims. This was then blamed on the Syrian Army with the aim of creating Sunni defections from the Army. ‘Abu Qusay’ had been interviewed by foreign journalists who did not notice by his accent that he was not Syrian (Eretz Zen 2014).
US Journalist Nir Rosen, whose reports were generally critical of the Syrian Government, also attacked the western consensus over the early violence:
The issue of defectors is a distraction. Armed resistance began long before defections started … Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation … Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters but … described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces … and every day members of the Syrian Army, security agencies … are also killed by anti-regime fighters (Rosen 2012).
A language and numbers game was being played to delegitimize the Syrian Government (‘The Regime’) and the Syrian Army (‘Assad loyalists’), suggesting they were responsible for all the violence. Just as NATO forces were bombing Libya with the aim of overthrowing the Libyan Government, US officials began to demand that President Assad step down.
The Brookings Institution (Shaikh 2011) claimed the President had ‘lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria’. US Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman said it was time ‘to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government’ (FOX News 2011). Another ‘regime change’ campaign was out in the open.
In June, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton dismissed the idea that ‘foreign instigators’ had been at work, saying that ‘the vast majority of casualties have been unarmed civilians’ (Clinton 2011). In fact, as Clinton knew very well, her Saudi Arabian allies had armed extremists from the very beginning. Her casualty assertion was also wrong.
The United Nations (which would later abandon its body count) estimated from several sources that by early 2012, there were more than 5,000 casualties and that deaths in the first year of conflict included 478 police and 2,091 from the military and security forces (OHCHR 2012: 2; Narwani 2014). That is, more than half the casualties in the first year were those of the Syrian security forces.
That independent calculation was not reflected in western media reports. Western groups such as Human Rights Watch along with US columnists (e.g. Allaf 2012) continued to claim even after the early 2012 defeat of the sectarian Farouq-FSA in Homs and well into 2012 that Syrian security forces had been massacring ‘unarmed protesters’, that the Syrian people ‘had no choice’ but to take up arms, and that this ‘protest movement’ had been ‘overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011’ (HRW 2011a, HRW 2012). The evidence cited above shows that this story was quite false.
In fact, the political reform movement had been driven off the streets by Salafi-Islamist gunmen, over the course of March and April. For years opposition groups had agitated against corruption and the Ba’ath Party monopoly.
However most did not want destruction of what was a socially inclusive if authoritarian state, and most were against both the sectarian violence and the involvement of foreign powers. They backed Syria’s protection of minorities, the relatively high status of women and the country’s free education and health care, while opposing the corrupt networks and the feared political police (Wikstrom 2011; Otrakji 2012).
In June reporter Hala Jaber (2011) observed that about five thousand people turned up for a demonstration at Ma’arrat al-Numan, a small town in northwest Syria, between Aleppo and Hama. She says several ‘protesters’ had been shot the week before, while trying to block the road between Damascus and Aleppo. After some negotiations which reduced the security forces in the town, ‘men with heavy beards in cars and pick-ups with no registration plates’ with ‘rifles and rocket-propelled grenades’ began shooting at the reduced numbers of security forces.
A military helicopter was sent to support the security forces. After this clash ‘four policemen and 12 of their attackers were dead or dying. Another 20 policemen were wounded’. Officers who escaped the fight were hidden by some of the tribal elders who had participated in the original demonstration. When the next ‘demonstration for democracy’ took place, the following Friday, ‘only 350 people turned up’, mostly young men and some bearded militants (Jaber 2011). Five thousand protesters had been reduced to 350 after the open Salafist attacks.
After months of media manipulations disguising the Islamist insurrection, Syrians such as Samer al Akhras, a young man from a Sunni family who used to watch Al Jazeera because he preferred it to state TV became convinced to back the Syrian government. He saw first-hand the fabrication of reports on Al Jazeera and wrote, in late June 2011:
I am a Syrian citizen and I am a human. After 4 months of your fake freedom … You say peaceful demonstration and you shoot our citizen. From today … I am [now] a Sergeant in the Reserve Army. If I catch anyone … in any terrorist organization working on the field in Syria I am gonna shoot you as you are shooting us. This is our land not yours, the slaves of American fake freedom (al Akhras 2011).
Abouzeid, Rania (2011) ‘Syria’s Revolt, how graffiti stirred an uprising’, Time, 22 March.
Haidar, Ali (2013) interview with this writer, Damascus 28 December. [Ali Haidar was President of the Syrian Social National Party (SSNP), a secular rival to the Ba’ath Party. In 2012 President Bashar al Assad incorporated him into the Syrian government as Minister for Reconciliation.].
Truth Syria (2012) ‘Syria – Daraa revolution was armed to the teeth from the very beginning’, BBC interview with Anwar Al-Eshki, YouTube interview, video originally uploaded 10 April, latest version 7 November, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoGmrWWJ77w.
Seale, Patrick (1988) Asad: the struggle for the Middle East, University of California Press, Berkeley CA.
The Syrian Civil War began when Muslim Brotherhood protesters, who some say were working for NATO, opened fire on both police and protesters at protests in Deraa on March 17-18, 2011.
This exact same thing happened in Ukraine when Maidan people paid snipers to come from Lithuania and open fire on both the Berkut police and the demonstrators. All of the shots came from a building that was controlled by the Right Sector at the time.
Both Berkut police and protesters were shot by bullets from the same sniper rifles. The Berkut did not have any sniper rifles like this – in fact, they had no sniper rifles at all.
The Estonian Foreign Minister was later recorded on phone telling an EU Foreign Minister that all of the people at the Maidan had been shot by the same guns. He also said that the shooters had been all Maidan people.
Several days after the shooting, a group of mysterious people were evacuated from the Right Sector building where the shots had come from. Many were women. They were said to be “musicians,” and they were all carrying musical instrument cases. Apparently these cases contained sniper rifles. Most of these “musicians” had come from Lithuania and other Baltic states. There is video on Youtube of these “musicians” leaving the building to board aircraft to leave the country. They were being protected by police from the new Maidan government.
It was later learned that these snipers had been hired and trained by NATO. They were trained at a NATO training camp in Poland six months before the Maidan riots.
But the damage had been done. The NATO false flag of “Berkut firing on peaceful protesters” had been used as a pretext for undertaking a NATO violent coup that threw out the pro-Russian President and replaced him with a radical neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalist regime.