Refugees or an Occupation Army?

  • “Allah requires from the believers to be masters of the land where they live, and only they can have property, and only we will be able to own the land.” — Muslim migrants in Crete, Greece.
  • The migrants were ready to wage jihad because they believed a rumor about an event for which, even had it been true, the Greek State and its inhabitants had no responsibility.
  • The establishment in Greece is a miniature of the American establishment: politicians and institutions of government corrupted to the bones.
  • We Greeks have already been crushed by Islam, by the twentieth century genocide in Turkey and the more recent Turkish occupation of Cyprus, again with the world’s complicity.
  • What is happening in Greece, as in much of Europe, is actually a massive replacement of its population, its values and its way of life.
  • The mainstream political parties obey the self-destructive EU policies on immigration that could eventually cause the end of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian values of Europe, such as individual freedom, critical thinking and dispassionate inquiry.
What does an occupation army do when it is installed in a country? It occupies the land, forcing residents to follow its own way of life. It implements measures against the country’s inhabitants, it propagandizes its beliefs and uses force to have them imposed.This, sadly, is what has been happening in Greece from the migrants who seem to “forget” that they are hosted in Greece and force the Greeks to feel like guests in their own country.

If someone is a war refugee or his life is in danger in his homeland, it would seem appropriate, when he arrives in the country which offers him asylum, to be grateful to this country, respect its history, its people its values and its laws. The same would hold true for an immigrant who wants to go to a country where he hopes he will find a better future.

In Greece, conversely, illegal immigrants — all of whom the media call “refugees,” apparently trying artificially to legalize them in the moral consciousness of citizens — have been occupying spaces that do not belong to them, using violence, blocking roads, committing crimes against public property, acting aggressively toward residents and the police, and saying that they feel offended when they see symbols that represent Christianity. The guests seem to be trying to take over the house.

Recomended. Read the full article in its original source: Gatestone Institute

Exposed: Clinton Campaign Incites Violence Against Trump Supporters

Video shows Democratic operatives recruit homeless, mentally ill and union members

A new undercover video proves the Clinton campaign is paying people to incite violence at Trump rallies.

The organization Project Veritas — based in New York and founded by James O’Keefe — is releasing the first in a series of new undercover videos showing the Hillary campaign has been paying agitators to disrupt rallies for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

An undercover journalist spoke to operatives representing several progressive activist organizations — namely Americans United for Change (AUC) and Democracy Partners (DP) — admitting to receiving orders and funding from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Scott Foval, a director of AUC, admits, “But I answer to the head of Special Events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign.”

He describes the chain of events as follows: “The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the s**t.

Robert Creamer, DP head and consultant for AUC, told the reporter, “Wherever Trump and Pence are going to be, we have events and we have a whole team across the country that does that.” He continues, “Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and the people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign; and my role with the campaign is to manage all that.”

Foval adds, “Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear on that stuff.”

An operative for AUC and DP, Aaron Minter — also known as Aaron Black — admits to being the “deputy rapid response director” for the violence at the canceled Trump rally in Chicago in March, along with Robert Creamer.

“So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us,” Minter admitted. “It was more him [Creamer] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from people, we don’t want it to come from the party.”

He continues,

So if we do a protest and it’s a DNC protest, right away the press is going to say partisan. But if I’m in there coordinating with all the troops on the ground and sort of playing the field general but they are the ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people. But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign, it just doesn’t have that same effect.

Foval admits, “I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do s**t, make no mistake. Over the last 20 years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program.”

Besides using homeless and the mentally ill to be the faces for their operations, he goes on to reveal that his most useful ally is the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

But the reality is, a lot of people. especially our union guys — a lot of our union guys … they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, “What do you need?” And I will say, I need a guy who will do this, this and this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, Hell yeah, let’s do it.

Despite all the damning evidence against the DNC and the Clinton campaign, the Project Veritas video is being ignored by the mainstream media. Last week, O’Keefe was blocked from his Twitter account for releasing an undercover video of the New York Commissioner of Board of Elections admitting massive voter fraud in New York City.

In light of the undercover sting, president of Americans United for Change has announced that Foval has been fired and maintains the organization “has always operated according to the highest ethical standards.”

Source 1: Church Militant
Source 2: NY Post

Fury in Germany over Syrian Muslim refugee who gets state hand-outs for his FOUR wives and 22 children

Outrage is building in Germany after it was revealed that a Syrian refugee is claiming social benefits for his FOUR wives and 22 children.

Ghazia A. – whose full name has not been disclosed – fled Syria in 2015 and headed to Germany via Turkey, accompanied by his four wives and 23 children – but one of the daughters has now married and is currently living in Saudi Arabia.

According to Muslim tradition, a man is allowed to have up to four wives as long as he can support them financially. 

Germany does not officially recognize polygamy but is footing the bill for his clan nonetheless.

Ghazia had to choose one of the women as an ‘official’ wife in order for him and the rest of the family to claim social benefits.

He opted for his ‘main’ wife Twasif and five children, while the other three women have been officially labelled his ‘partners’ by authorities.

He lives in Montabaur – hometown of kamikaze Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz who achieved infamy last year after seizing the controls of a jetliner he was co-piloting to crash it into the French Alps, killing himself and another 148 people on board.

His other three wives had to split their children between them and were moved into various neighboring communities.

A neighbor of Ghazia told Bild that he is often absent from his ‘main’ family while visiting other wives and children.

‘According to our religion I have the duty to visit each family equally and not to prioritize any of them,’ Ghazia A. told Bild.

The story has caused a storm on social media. ‘Of course, the #Syrian (49) lives with his 4 women & 22 children from #Social benefits, from what else?!’ one person noted in a tweet.

A German financial manager released his calculation of what the German state is paying to the entire family annually. On the website of the Employers’ Association he estimated that the refugees are getting roughly 360,000 Euro per year.

But there is no official confirmation on what they receive.

‘I am practically always on my way to be with my family – yet I would gladly like to work,’ added Ghazia A.

Back in his home country he used to earn money with his car sharing and car service business which covered raising his extended clan.

Some people believe the case reflects the ‘new reality’ in Germany since it opened its doors to over a million people.

‘The new reality in the big canton – nice Friday to you all. My neighbour has 4 women and 23 children,’ one message said.

Another one claimed that the ‘the Syrian with 4 women and 23 children is now being sold to us as a new normality.’

According to Guido Göbel, a local official in Montabaur, covering the financial expenses for the Syrian family is not easy. However, he said that the case is an ‘exemption.’

Source 1: Daily Mail
Source 2: Bild

Germans leaving ‘in droves’ amid fallout from Angela Merkel’s open door migrant policy

Read it in: Germans leaving ‘in droves’ amid fallout from Angela Merkel’s open door migrant policy

And in:  Gatestone Institute.
“I believe that Islam does not belong to Germany. I regard it as a foreign entity which has brought the West more problems than benefits. In my opinion, many followers of this religion are rude, demanding and despise Germany.” — A German citizen who emigrated from Germany, in an “Open Letter to the German Government.”

Hating Russia Trolls – iPredators Inhabit LinkedIn

By: Yana Dianova

Do the US intelligence services troll Linkedin as well as other social media?

The author is a Moscow based private practice lawyer

Though not having been an active user of LinkedIn from the moment of joining it in 2010 (I browse the newsfeed there mostly when traveling to and from from work and occasionally on weekends) with the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis at the beginning 2014, while glimpsing occasionally (but not on an everyday basis) at the posts and comments of my contacts I began to notice some strange activities.

There are obviously some fake profiles, with altered images of certain countries’ leaders or blurred photos, and/or bogus credentials that cannot be independently verified, including current and previous employment and education (further – the “assaulters”) who post provocative and often explicitly insulting “trolling” comments in groups (in particular, the Russian International Affairs Council) and/or under updates regarding Russia and the Ukraine, and when countered by other users, if they have not been able respond with  fact-based arguments, they will employ the lowest argumentative fallacies, including:

1- ad hominem attacks (a favorite one is calling an opponent a “Kremlin/Russian troll”, a “useful idiot” etc.), as here, here and here:

– False attribution (e.g. citing American corporate media like the New York Times and the Washington Post, Ukrainian propagandist sites like euromaidanpress.com and such notorious “opposition activists’” as Kasparov blogs and Facebook pages as credible sources of information) and trying to disparage alternative media, investigative journalists and bloggers as ″conspiracy theorists″ and/or ″Kremlin propagandists″: See here.

    • hasty generalizations without any objective evidence (like “Russians are the most drinking/sloppy/aggressive nation”) and explicit bigotry and smearing of Russia and Russians: here here and here
    • appeal to ridicule (like “Based on your new photo you have gained weight, it must have been due to sanctions”), “straw man”, etc. here here and here

Note: the fact that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) sponsored Ukrainian opposition groups prior to the coup in February 2014  is quite well documented, just like the fact that three weeks before the putsch in Kiev, the U.S. State Department was planning to orchestrate the removal of Ukraine’s duly elected President Viktor Yanukovych and select new leaders for Ukraine  (i.e. a four-minute intercepted telephone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt was published on YouTube). See here

Note: On 21 February 2014, Victor Yanukovych conceded to the Maidan protesters and signed the Agreement on settling the crisis in the Ukraine that provided, in particular, for a return to the Constitution of 2004 and re-election of the president by the end of 2014. Apparently fearing that the violence at the Maidan would escalate nevertheless, since the shootings that took place just a couple of days before showed there were gunmen among the crowd and professional snipers provoking the escalation, Yanukovych ordered the police and special forces to withdraw from Kyiv by the same date as the Agreement was signed, fled from Kyiv himself and made a public statement that what was happening was an unconstitutional takeover.

On 22 February 2014, the Rada (Ukraine’s parliament) was “reformed”: seventy deputies of the pro-government Regions Party that held the majority gave up their seats. The reformed Rada decided to hold early presidential elections on 24 May 2014 – in violation of both the Constitution of the Ukraine article 108, which provides that the president may be ousted only in the following cases: 1. resignation (Yanukovych had not resigned); 2. inability to perform his duties due to health conditions (he was able but was not permitted to); 3. impeachment (he was not impeached); 4. death. The respective decision of Rada did not even refer to the Constitution regarding the legal basis for ouster of the president.  A complete analysis of all the violations of the Ukraine’s Constitution sustained in the process of ousting Yanukovych and the election of the new government was made by the Kyiv Times.

Occasionally, when assailants totally ran out of arguments, they would suggest that if you did not like the way they lead a ″discussion″ you could leave LinkedIn, since it is ″their″ social network: here here and here

Although such actions constitute blatant violations of the LinkedIn Community Guidelines and the LinkedIn User Agreement, paragraphs 8.1. and 8.2., LinkedIn support has usually done nothing when such users’ insulting and often defamatory comments were flagged as inappropriate and in response to the allegedly fake notices on their profiles, even when obvious discrepancies in the information on their profiles are clearly demonstrated and evidence of the respective misrepresentation from external sources (i.e. official web sites of government authorities and companies’ registers, as well as e-mail correspondence with their alleged employers) was provided.

The most active of these assaulters who appear to spend 24/7 at LinkedIn posting and commenting, have something in common (if one takes for granted at least part of the data on their profiles)

  • they claim to be either former or active US government officials, including a “retired CIA operations officer”, or “management analysts at the Office of Security, U.S. Department of Commerce” or a “US army veteran” or an “analyst at Wikistrat″, or a ″retired independent consultant″, an ″independent contractor”, etc.;

  • they generally act as a team by commenting on, liking and sharing the same posts aimed at disparaging Russia and almost simultaneously: here and here 

  • they try not only to insult but also to defame and discredit anyone who dares to argue with them, libeling the latter as a “Russian troll” and/or ″Kremlin asset″, be it a Russian Ph.D engineer or lawyer, an American professor of political science, a French entrepreneur or a Canadian journalist, etc.

  • they appear to do all this scientifically, i.e. recording their own and others comments (in particular, in order to file ″collective″ complaints with LinkedIn when someone they specifically provoke does not respond politely): here

The most constructive way to deal with assailants has been to block them, but even then you receive messages from your contacts that continues to insult and defame you when your name is mentioned by a third party or without any reason whatsoever.

Generally, the assailants have act not as typical Internet trolls but rather as IPredators  engaged in ″victimization, stalking or disparagement of others using information and communications technology″. They can go so far as to publish on their blogs outside LinkedIn posts dedicated to particular LinkedIn users (whom they could not ″defeat″ in the course of exchanges of comments) in which they libel them as “Russian trolls” without any proof or valid reason, spreading this libel/defamation throughout LinkedIn.

This phenomenon of cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking on the 400 millions user social network is peculiar not only considering the claimed background of                 the “assailants” (US intelligence services and/or military forces) and the geopolitical context (the “Cold War-II”), but also given that the most active assailants expressly state on their profiles”Information Operations/Information Warfare, Electronic Warfare, Deception, Operational Security, Cyberwar, Intelligence, Special Forces and Special Operations”.

This prompts a reasonable question: could they actually be US government-sponsored trolls?

According to anecdotal evidence by former CIA clandestine service trainee and DIA analyst Lynnae Williams, the FBI and CIA use trolls to monitor social media and interact with users to discredit information disseminated on the web. Williams explained that the CIA provides training videos to new recruits on how to troll the internet. Once a target is locked-in, all open source information is obtained on the individual, and any angle is used on social media sites to discredit them.

The trolls’ work usually falls within several categories, in particular:

  • they combine vast knowledge with disinformation and ridicule, in order to make a subject appear as uninteresting and misleading as possible;

  • they usually post discrediting messages in groups, supporting each other’s claims, while demoting, ridiculing or spreading disinformation in all interesting threads. These trolls are usually very active and are the first to post replies;

  • they usually support each other’s threads;

  • they are very active and are part of many groups and communities, but they are mainly activated by specific subjects – those they know best.

As revealed by the Guardian, the US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian firm Ntrepid was awarded the $2.76m contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that would allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world and, working around the clock in one location, respond to online conversations with any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. The personas should be “replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent”, a Centcom tender document said.

The multiple persona contract was thought to have been awarded as part of a program called Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which was first developed in Iraq as a psychological warfare weapon against the online presence of al-Qaida supporters and others ranged against coalition forces.

David Petraeus, then commander of Centcom, described the operation as an effort to “counter extremist ideology and propaganda and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard”. Petraeus’s successor, General James Mattis, then told the US Senate’s armed services committee that OEV “supports all activities associated with degrading the enemy narrative, including web engagement and web-based product distribution capabilities”.

According to Centcom, their only objective was ″to counter extremists and enemy propaganda outside of the U.S.″, saying that it would be unlawful to address U.S. audiences.
However, the 2013 version of the NDAA included an amendment that legalized domestic deceptive propaganda. The new law allows the U.S government to legally carry out misinformation campaigns against U.S. citizens.

It is worth mentioning in this connection that a close adviser of Obama and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein proposed in 2008 that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups, as well as sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government.

Papers leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden indicate that the US and British intelligence agencies have been deeply engaged in planning ways to covertly use social media for purposes of propaganda and deception. Documents prepared by NSA and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) (and previously published by the Intercept as well as NBC News) revealed aspects of some of these programs.

In particular, Glenn Greenwald published and analyzed the document issued by a previously secret unit of GCHQ –  Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

According to this document, among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and

(2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable.

The tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.

The “targets” for this deception and reputation-destruction include: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. The title page of one of these documents reflects JTRIG’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats. The discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political end.  As Glenn Greenwald concludes, ″the broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats.″

The U.S. government as well has actually been caught manipulating social media discourses at such big sites like Reddit and editing Wikipedia, in particular, suggesting that InforWars anchors Alex Jones and Abby Martin are Kremlin propagandists.

The circumstantial evidence, therefore, suggests, that LinkedIn may have one of the US intelligence agencies’ programs for “countering the enemy’s narrative”, actively implemented through the “assailants” who employ the tactics according to the rules for Internet disruption and disinformation, in particular:

  1. pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by op experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue);

  2. coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable comments (especially effective when the posters launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession,  the original, reasonable comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost);

  3. use “sock puppets” to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like, or use software that allows you to quickly create and alternate between several false identities, each with their own internet address;

  4. question motives: twist or amplify any fact that could be taken to imply that the opponent has a hidden personal agenda or other bias which avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Another question that a reasonable person would ask in this connection is to what extent LinkedIn Corporation is involved in the implementation of such a program: does it act as a mere provider of an interactive computer service that “shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or does it deliberately provide the platform for government sponsored trolls to cyber harass and assault anyone who expresses views that may be deemed an “information threat” by certain circles within the US establishment, curbing thereby the freedom of speech, –  one of the fundamental constitutional freedoms in many jurisdictions?

To be continued
Author: Yana Dianova
Source: Russian Insider

FBI can now hack computers anywhere in the world

The FBI now has the powers to hack computers anywhere around the world, the Intercept reports. The US Supreme Court approved changes to regulations that make it easier for the Bureau to hack into computers that will take effect in December, unless Congress enacts opposing legislation.

Until now, warrants issued by US judges couldn’t authorise hacking into a computer “if the investigator didn’t know where the computer was—because it might be outside his or her jurisdiction.”

Under the new rules, however, warrants can be issued that cover search or seizure of any electronic device, regardless of its location, “if the target of the investigation is using anonymity software like Tor to cloak their location.”

Additionally, the ruling expands the FBI’s powers to hack into computers that have previously been hacked, like those infected in a botnet – a network of hacked computers used like “zombies” in cyber attacks.

The rule change was pushed for by the US Justice Department, who advocated for it claiming that it was a procedural change needed to deal with the challenges of the digital age.

Privacy advocates have opposed the change, with Kevin Bankston, director of the Open Technology Institute, saying: “Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it—whether they call it a ‘remote access search’ or a ‘network investigative technique’—what we’re talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a whole lot more of it.

The Justice Department responded to criticism saying that it would not authorise searches more extensive than those already allowed.

Source: IHLS

Why Is The CIA Investing In Skincare?

The CIA has now entered the skincare business, it seems. Or at least, the agency is funding a product that has some very cool spying properties.

The CIA has injected some cash into Skincential Sciences, a maker of a new skincare product, Clearista, which can be used to collect DNA information from users.

The product, which is claimed to remove blemishes from skin, has caught the attention of bloggers, YouTubers, and even Oprah herself. But The Intercept reports that the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, has also had its interest piqued.

The public face of Skincential advertises a range of skincare products, but the company has also “developed a patented technology that removes a thin outer layer of the skin, revealing unique biomarkers that can be used for a variety of diagnostic tests, including DNA collection,” The Intercept reports.

The procedure is noninvasive, and is described as “painless” on the Clearista website. It requires only water, a special detergent, and a few brushes against the skin. Easy to use, and effective for DNA collection.

“If there’s something beneath the surface, that’s not part of our relationship and I’m not directly aware. They’re interested here in something that can get easy access to biomarkers,” said Russ Lebovitz, Skincential CEO in an interview with The Intercept.

Lebovitz said he’s unsure of why the spook agency took a particular interest in the company he heads, but said that the fund was “specifically interested in the diagnostics, detecting DNA from normal skin.”

There’s no better identifier than DNA, and we know we can pull out DNA.”

Source: iHLS

LA Times: “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA”

Surprise, surprise. After directing the Pentagon to arm and train the Syrian “rebels”, the Obama administration is perhaps learning that it might not have been a good idea to interfere in an Islamic civil war in which both factions are fighting for the same cause: Islamic domination.

Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, calls the clashes “a fairly new phenomenon.”

It is part of the three-dimensional chess that is the Syrian battlefield,” he said.
President Obama this month authorized a new Pentagon plan to train and arm Syrian rebel fighters, relaunching a program that was suspended in the fall after a string of embarrassing setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate.

Amid the setbacks, the Pentagon late last year deployed about 50 special operations forces to Kurdish-held areas in northeastern Syria to better coordinate with local militias and help ensure U.S.-backed rebel groups aren’t fighting one another. But such skirmishes have become routine.

Last year, the Pentagon helped create a new military coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces. The goal was to arm the group and prepare it to take territory away from the Islamic State in eastern Syria and to provide information for U.S. airstrikes.

That was the Pentagon.  But the CIA was seemingly operating on a separate mission:
The CIA, meanwhile, has its own operations center inside Turkey from which it has been directing aid to rebel groups in Syria, providing them with TOW antitank missiles from Saudi Arabian weapons stockpiles.

While the Pentagon’s actions are part of an overt effort by the U.S. and its allies against Islamic State, the CIA’s backing of militias is part of a separate covert U.S. effort aimed at keeping pressure on the Assad government in hopes of prodding the Syrian leader to the negotiating table.

At first, the two different sets of fighters were primarily operating in widely separated areas of Syria — the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the northeastern part of the country and the CIA-backed groups farther west. But over the last several months, Russian airstrikes against anti-Assad fighters in northwestern Syria have weakened them. That created an opening which allowed the Kurdish-led groups to expand their zone of control to the outskirts of Aleppo, bringing them into more frequent conflict with the CIA-backed outfits.

Fighting over territory in Aleppo demonstrates how difficult it is for the U.S. to manage these really localized and in some cases entrenched conflicts,” said Nicholas A. Heras, an expert on the Syrian civil war at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington. “Preventing clashes is one of the constant topics in the joint operations room with Turkey.”
While the Obama administration contributes greatly to this Syrian civil war and continues their quest to give sanctuary to Syrian Muslim refugees in America, Christians in Syria are basically ignored by the president.

From Christian Post:
“Christians have suffered greatly in the cross-fire between the government and the rebels, and have also faced extreme persecution at the hands of terror group the Islamic State, which has captured significant territory in the war-torn country.

Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop of Aleppo, warned back in June that Christians are slowly disappearing from the region.

“In my country, Syria, Christians are caught in the middle of a civil war and they are enduring the rage of an extremist jihad. And it is unjust for the West to ignore the persecutions these Christian communities are experiencing,” Jeanbart said in an article.

What horrors must ISIS commit before the world will take greater action to stop the murderers?” he asked. “Syrian Christians are in grave danger; we may disappear soon.”

Author: Ms. Ann-Marie Murrell
Source: LA Times

En Syrie, les milices armées par le Pentagone combattent contre celles armées par…la CIA

Selon trois journalistes du Los Angeles Times, des milices syriennes armées par les Etats-Unis se mènent une guerre sans merci entre la ville d’Alep et la frontière turque.

Des responsables américains ont confirmé que la situation devenait de moins en moins contrôlable depuis la multiplication des escarmouches entre milices à la périphérie nord d’Alep lors de ces deux derniers mois.

A la mi-février, une milice armée par la CIA dénommé Fursans al Haq, ou Chevaliers de la Droiture, a été décimée dans la ville de Marea, située à 30 kilomètres au nord d’Alep, par les Forces démocratiques syriennes,unecoalition militaire à majorité kurde soutenue par le Pentagone.

D’autres combattants ont décrit des affrontements similaires dans la ville d’Azaz, un point de transit clé pour les combattants et les marchandises qui circulent entre Alep et la frontière turque. L’émergence des Forces démocratiques syriennes n’a pas permis d’atteindre l’objectif initial, celui de reprendre les territoires contrôlés par Daesh. En revanche, cette coalition ne cesse d’étendre son aire d’influence au nord de la Syrie. Un fait qui préoccupe vivement la Turquie voisine, en guerre contre les Unités de protection du peuple (YPG). Les militants kurdes profitent de ce vaste pan de territoire comme zone de repli.

Ces derniers événements illustrent la difficulté des Américains à coordonner les dizaines de groupes armés qui, concentrant leurs efforts pour évincer le président Bachar el-Assad, ne luttent pas assez efficacement contre Daesh.

«C’est un énorme défi», reconnaît Adam Schiff, membre de la Commission du renseignement de la Maison Blanche. Le représentant américain a en outre ajouté qu’il était indispensable pour Washington d’avoir «un partenaire sur le terrain» afin d’éliminer Daesh. Un avis partagé par Jeffrey White, un ancien fonctionnaire de la Defense Intelligence Agency, l’une des agences du renseignement américain pilotée par le département de la Défense. «Une fois qu’ils franchissent la frontière en Syrie, vous perdez une capacité importante de contrôler leurs actions», a-t-il affirmé lors d’un entretien téléphonique.

L’interventionnisme raté des Etats-Unis dans le conflit syrien risque donc de sérieusement menacer le développement de l’unité de la Syrie, que le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry n’a pas hésité à remettre en question en évoquant, en février dernier, l’éventualité d’une partition territoriale.

Source: RT

Why is David Cameron so silent on the recapture of Palmyra from the clutches of Isis?

In the end, it was the Syrian army – and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon, and the Iranians, and the Russians – who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra.

The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn’t they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn’t we?

Less than a week after the lost souls of the ‘Islamic Caliphate‘ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should – should we not? – have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (I’m talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.

As my long-dead colleague on the Sunday Express, John Gordon, used to say, makes you sit up a bit, doesn’t it? Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin’s Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren’t utter a single word to say well done.

When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army’s big question: why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn’t they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army’s front lines? Why didn’t they attack Isis?

If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.

Putin noticed this, and talked about it, and accurately predicted the retaking of Palmyra. His aircraft attacked Isis – as US planes did not – in advance of the Syrian army’s conquest. I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American “war on terror“. They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.

So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra, and who may – heavens preserve us from such a success – even storm the Isis Syrian ‘capital’ of Raqqa. I have written many times that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back Raqqa – and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915 Christian victims into the streets – I promise you we will be silent again.

Aren’t we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s. Pray for peace, folks. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?

Source: Independent