CIA Interventions in Syria - any parallels with Ukraine?

CIA Interventions in Syria - any parallels with Ukraine?

Greg Krasovsky: When the U.S. government uses the CIA, the State Department and/or the Pentagon to support radicals (including nationalists, neo-Nazis and heirs of Nazi collaborators and war criminals like the Ukrainian SS Division Galitsiya) - by providing them with money, training, weapons, safe passage, political support and media support - in order to topple a foreign regime that's not friendly (subservient?) to US interests, civil war is often around the corner.

After the end of WWII, the US Government actively hid from justice and relocated to the U.S. (against U.S. laws!) Ukrainian Nazi war criminals in order to use them in the cold war against the Soviet Union. 

We're talking about war criminals who either killed themselves or aided the Nazi SS troops in killing hundreds of thousands (perhaps over  a million) of Poles and Jews in Ukraine, Poland and Byelorussia.
   
What was the justification? In case WWIII broke out with the Soviet Union, the U.S. would have loyal Ukrainian and Russian speaking troops to help wage war against the Soviets.

Actually, OSS, CIA and its European partners provided Ukrainian Nazi collaborators and war criminals with weapons, communications logistics and training bases as they waged an insurgency and terrorism in Ukraine and the Baltics up to the early 1950s. Most of their victims were local civilians, including many women and children, who dared support new Soviet rule.
  
So when Ukraine became an independent country in 1991, is it surprising that the CIA began to fund and develop Ukrainian nationalists, including radical xenophobes and neo-Nazis, to bring about a Ukrainian government that would be anti-Russia and controlled (politically, economically and eventually militarily when it joined NATO or had enough NATO bases & troops on its soil) by the USA?

Unfortunately, the history of CIA work against the anti-US Assad government in Syria since 2010 is a pertinent example of how the CIA has operated since its inception to force regime change and install pro-US regimes (even authoritarian and totalitarian ones!) when necessary by covert action, false flag operations, assassinations and military support to radical insurgents.
   
When the US government and its agencies - CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, Department of State - exploit and/or inflame political, ethnic and religious tensions (conflicts) to enact regime change, the consequences can be utterly devastating for any country.
  
What's the worse case scenario for a country? Let's look at Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. 
  
As I've written before many times, as an American of Ukrainian and Russian heritage, I don't want Ukraine to join this club of failed states. 

I have always been for a truly for truly independent and democratic Ukraine - but not for a country where radical nationalists and ant-Russian xenophobes beat, detain, torture, kidnap and even kill their opponents (normal Ukrainian people who don't share the radicals' hate of everything Russian) with impunity, de facto and de jure legal immunity from prosecution.

So let's look at Syria and try to do everything in our power to prevent the US and its NATO allies from doing the same thing in Ukraine - namely, supporting pr-US hate-spewing radical extremists who will eventually create either a totalitarian state or a failed state embroiled in civil war with an endless outflow of refugees seeking peace in neighboring countries. 

BTW, these failed states always become breeding grounds, staging areas and refuge for radical terrorists bent on committing terrorist acts in neighboring countries. 

Who do you think the militarization of Ukrainian society will produce, especially when there are no jobs available for these newly trained radicals who've already tasted blood and overcome any hesitation at killing civilians (pro-Russian separatist-supporting scum, as they call them)? These people have been taught to hate Russian and  trained to kill any Pro-Russian who does not agree with their vision of a pure Ukraine for Ukrainians.

So guess what? The natural target for anti-Russian radical Ukrainian nationalists will be Russia. If you think that Israel was ruthless in stomping out Palestinian bases in neighboring countries (like Lebanon in 1985), then I've got some bad news for you - Russia will be just as ruthless as Israel with all ensuing consequences for Ukraine and its innocent civilian population that's been taken hostage in the very dangerous geopolitical game. 

Judging by the US response to Al Qaeda attacks on US soil in 2001 - the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - if a major terrorist act is committed on Russian soil by anti-Russian Ukrainian radicals, then Russia's response is likely to exceed the US response, as Ukraine is literally next door unlike Afghanistan or Iraq.

Do we want the US, EU and NATO to face such a scenario? Only a madman would want to risk a potentially (likely) nuclear WWIII in the geographic center of Europe..
  
Would you?
  
Here's a compilation of articles about how those radical insurgents in Syria, like ISIS (DAESH), al-Nusra Front and the so-called "moderate opposition" got their start, funding, weapons and other logistical help that helped them gain control by the summer of 2015 of at least half of Syria. 

*******************

CIA Interventions in Syria: A Partial Timeline
Michael S. Rozeff

"This partial timeline provides evidence that the U.S. government and Obama in particular bear a significant responsibility for the Syrian war and the results of that war. Obama approved elements of CIA plans that go back over 65 years. The CIA meddling is distinct from the Pentagon’s failed plan to train moderate rebels, not covered in this timeline.
...
In my opinion, the most serious U.S. meddling is what the Wikileaks cables reveal, which is the State Department’s organization of domestic opposition to its elected government. This provoked the revolution that started in Daraa, and that provided an opening for radical and armed Muslim elements to enter the battle. Next in importance is Obama’s position that Assad must go, because this guides the entry of the CIA and Pentagon into the war while committing the U.S. to a politically untenable and impossible course of attempting to reconstitute a new government among radical and rival forces if and when Assad falls or rebel forces gain control. Undetermined but significant amounts of arms and training have ended up flowing to ISIS and other radical groups that the U.S. cannot control, and these forces can’t be dislodged without bigger military commitments by the U.S. Neither the CIA’s activities nor the Pentagon’s failed training program have resulted in control over the battlefield or those groups, which have expanded control over Syrian territory.

Why did Obama intervene in Syria? There are four main reasons and they are not mutually exclusive. One reason is “democracy promotion”. This appears again and again in his rhetoric and that of the State department, where “democracy” is taken to mean “rights” among other things. Obama viewed Assad as standing in the way of the Syrian people. Obama’s intention to bomb Syria when he accused Assad of using chemical weapons brought out a version of this position in his concern for violations of international law. Obama has an idea of world order and the U.S. role in enforcing it. Obama’s position on the Arab Spring also showed this democracy promotion concern. The second reason is to thwart Iran in order to maintain U.S. dominance in the region. Related to this is U.S. support for Saudi Arabia and Gulf states who have also supported rebel elements in Syria as well as support for Turkey. The U.S. leads a coalition. The third reason is Israel’s influence in administration circles and on Capitol Hill. The fourth reason is to thwart Russia’s influence in Syria and deny it access to the Mediterranean. This appears to have backfired.
...
Why would I or many sane Americans want to bother with who rules Syria or how they rule it? It’s not my province. It’s none of my business. How in the world can I know whether I’m doing any good if I decide to butt in?

The government doesn’t think this way. It’s composed of people who want to meddle and run for office for that very reason. They are arrogant enough to think that they know what’s good for everyone when they don’t know diddly-squat. Who are they but pompous babbling fools? The CIA attracts smart people who love to work by schemes and subterfuges behind the scenes. These are power freaks who love playing byzantine games and relish manipulations. Why should any sane American want to allow these kinds of people to have access to ungodly amounts of money and power that they waste on their futile and very dangerous schemes that kill, maim and destroy?"

Please read the rest at https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/cia-interventions-in-syria-a-partial-timeline/


Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise.

“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” – Jesuit priest 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

“The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011” – Human Rights Watch, March 2012, Washington

A double story began on the Syrian conflict, at the very beginning 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, including the Washington-based Human Rights Watch. 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 delegitimise the Syrian Government, with the aim of fomenting ‘regime change’. To understand this it is necessary to study the outbreak of the violence in Daraa, in March 2011. Central to that insurrection were shipments of arms from Saudi Arabia to Islamists at the al Omari mosque.
...
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).

Please read the rest at http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547


Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?

The current conflict consuming the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Syria where the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is operating and simultaneously fighting and defeating the forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, we are told, is built upon a logistical network based on black market oil and ransom payments.
...
While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.

Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.

Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.

Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.

Please read the rest at http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/09/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/


How The Hell Does ISIS Get All Those Tanks, Weapons And Shiny New Toyota Trucks? 

CNBC reported that so far we’ve accidentally furnished the Islamic State with at least $219.7 million worth of weapons, vehicles and other military supplies and gear — and that’s just the stuff we know about. 

Based on various reports, CNBC came up with the following laundry list of supplies the U.S. has so kindly provided to ISIS so far. 

2,300 Humvee armored vehicles at $70,000 each: $16 million 
40 M1A1 Abram tanks at $4.3 million each: $172 million 
52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems at $527,337 each: $2.7 million 
74,000 Army machine guns at $4,000 each: $29 million 
TOTAL: $219.7 MILLION in military weapons, vehicles, and other supplies and gear for ISIS. 

How does the Islamic State get hold of all these U.S. weapons? We deliver them, either directly or through the tattered remnants of Iraq’s military. 

[Jeremy Salt, a political analyst in Ankara, Turkey]...reminded us of our nation’s major blunders for supplying weapons to ISIS for the past couple of years. 

- Accidental air-dropping of weapons and supplies intended for the Syrian Kurds into Islamic State territory. 
- This didn’t just happen once, it happened several times. 
- Weapons and supplies seized by ISIS during the falls of Mosul (Iraq), Ramadi (Iraq), AND Palmyra (Syria). 

Salt doesn’t even bother explaining how the George W. Bush administration created ISIS by invading Iraq on false pretenses and chasing off all those heavily armed and well-trained Baathist soldiers. 

But he does ask how it’s even possible that U.S. intelligence and the military — both of which are among the most sophisticated in the world — could have possibly NOT seen what was coming. 

Please read the rest at http://reverbpress.com/news/international/isis-toyota-trucks-us-tanks-weapons/

University Study Shows that the Maidan Massacre was Planned by the Putschists.

University Study Shows that the Maidan Massacre was Planned by the Putschists.

Greg Krasovsky: A Canadian academic, Ivan Katchanovski, has dared to assert that the Euromaydan massacre (shootings of protesters and police from February 18 to February 20, 2014 "was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power."

Sadly, I tend to agree with him from my own sources and analysis of events.

Now let's see if Mr. Katchanovski becomes as ostracized as Valentina Lisitsa, the Canadian Ukrainian pianist who dared to speak out against the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the post-putsch Turchinov-Yatsenyuk-Poroshenko government troops in east Ukraine.

See http://www.facebook.com/ValentinaLisitsa/ and https://twitter.com/vallisitsa

*******

Selected excerpt:

"Ivan Katchanovski, professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, conducted a study on the massacre perpetrated by snipers on the Maidan square of Kiev in February, 2014.

The paper analyzes a large amount of material available from different sources:

- about 1500 videos and recordings from the internet and television in different countries (about 150 gigabytes),
- newsletters and social media messages from a hundred journalists covering the massacre of Kiev,
- about 5000 photos, and
- nearly 30 gigabytes of radio interceptions of snipers and commanders of the Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Ministry troops of the Interior and
- finally records of the massacre trial.

This study is also based on field research on the massacre site, witness’ reports from both camps, the commanders of the special units, the statements made by current and former government officials, approximate estimates of ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used and the types of injuries on both sides.

This study establishes a specific timetable for the various events of the massacre, the shooters locations and the precise timing and location of the death of nearly 50 protesters.

This university investigation concluded that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power."

Please read the rest at http://www.voltairenet.org/article189953.html

Also please watch the following video:

Who's behind the Maidan killings of February 2014 ?

"Kiev regime lately trying to come up with different stories about the "unknown snipers" who shot "heavenly hundred"

We instead will rely solely on the facts and objectivity simply list them, without making any conclusions

- Events took place on February 18th

It was then, about at one o'clock day time, Euromaidan activists and journalists, on the Institutska street, found a car, "Honda" with state numbers AA4774SO (registered to the citizen of Ukraine Boyko Elena ), in which in the trunk was found a sniper rifle with telescopic sight and a silencer

The driver of the car (identified as Barladin Petr) hid his face behind a medical mask and to the questions of activists could not and would not give clear answers.

Almost immediately at the scene appeared MP from the party "Fatherland" Pashinsky Sergey. He prevented the activists to hold the car, and then directed the escape.

Along with Pashinsky on the scene arrived trustee of Arsen Avakov [who's now Minister of Internal Affairs], special forces "Bars" team member Sobolta Yuri

By order of Sergei Pashinsky (Pashinsky commanded almost exclusively by gestures, so his leadership is obvious) Sobolta gets in the car and takes it to an unknown destination

A short time later Sobolta become the personal bodyguard of the new Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. A month later for unknown services received from him a personal award pistol "Fort 1705»

Later nether Pashinsky or other figures of the case does not really explain where sniper rifle came from to Instytutska , why it was there, why it secretly taken out and where it is gone. Nor was made proper investigation of the involvement of this rifle to subsequent events, as well as the participants did not offered any alibi. As if nothing happened and this video is simply imagination."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW20T4bDY70

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?

Greg Krasovsky: If US policy toward the civil war in Ukraine is in any way similar to US policy in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen, then Ukraine is headed toward the epicenter of a geopolitical disaster on world-wide proportions.

Why? Because Russia will act with greater response than in Syria to make sure that next-door Ukraine will not turn into a failed state that could (would!) be used by armed anti-Russian militants as a protected staging area in an attempt to overthrow Vladimir Putin's in Russia.

So let's keep an eye on Syria today, as the fates of Ukraine, Russia and America -- for better or for worse -- are intertwined in the resolution of the Syrian conflict. 

P.S. To see how things could spiral out of control, please read 

"Washington Asks Moscow: Please Do Not to Bomb American Troops Operating on the Ground in Northern Syria."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-asks-moscow-please-do-not-to-bomb-american-troops-operating-on-the-ground-in-northern-syria/5509226

"Experts: Invasion of Syria Could Lead to Nuclear War"

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/experts-invasion-syria-lead-nuclear-war.html

******* 

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?
by MIKE WHITNEY
Counterpunch.org
FEBRUARY 19, 2016

"The question is whether Putin will engage the Turkish military in a full-blown war just to recapture a few hundred meters of Syrian sovereign territory. I expect Putin will let the incident slide and chalk it up to “frustration” on Turkey’s part. If that’s the only victory that Erdogan requires, then it’s a price that’s worth paying. Putin has to stay focused on the big picture, and not get diverted by trivialities.

Of course, if Erdogan plans to push further into Syria, then there’s going to be trouble. After all, Moscow’s hands are tied. The only way it can hope to extricate itself from the conflict in Syria is by defeating the jihadists as quickly as possible, clearing out the hotbeds of resistance, and reestablishing security. If Turkey enters the war, that throws a wrench in everything. The tit-for-tat fighting will drag on for years, and there will probably never be a clear winner. This is exactly what Putin hopes to avoid. So, if Turkey launches an invasion and sends in ground troops, Putin will be forced to strike with everything-he’s-got to see if one, big shock and awe display of raw military power is enough to reverse the trend and send Erdogan’s legions packing. If it doesn’t work, and Turkey digs in, Syria could devolve into the mother of all quagmires, which is why we’re a little surprised that Obama is not pursuing a plan that would draw Turkey deeper into the fray, after all, Washington gains nothing strategically from its support for the YPG. In a way, the alliance makes no sense. Does Washington care about Kurdish aspirations for a homeland?

No. Does Obama want to help Putin clear the area North of Aleppo of jihadists, militants and opposition forces?

Of course not. Then what does Washington get?

Nothing.

An alliance with Erdogan, on the other hand, provides Washington with the footsoldiers it needs to fight its proxy war with Russia. It also creates a situation where Russia could get bogged down for years in a conflict that could drain its resources, undermine morale, and precipitate social unrest at home. Isn’t that exactly what Washington wants?"

Please read the rest of the article at http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/19/could-a-bomb-blast-in-ankara-change-the-outcome-of-the-war-in-syria/

NATO: Seeking Russia’s Destruction Since 1949?

NATO: Seeking Russia’s Destruction Since 1949

A very insightful article written by GARY LEUPP and published by counterpunch.org on December 25, 2015

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.

Selected Excerpt:

"Russia:  an “Existential Threat”?

First of all, the NATO advocates, however often they repeat that “We’re not against Russia, this isn’t about Russia,” do indeed posit an enduring Russian threat. Thus General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, the most senior British officer in NATO, stated last February that Russia poses “an obvious existential threat to our whole being.” Gen. Joseph Votel, head of the U.S. Special Operations Command told the Aspen Security Forum in July that “Russia could pose an existential threat to the United States.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) warned Obama to sign a military appropriations bill because Russia poses “an existential threat” to the U.S.  Philanthropist George Soros (who likes to finance “color revolutions”) wrote in the New York review of Books in October that “Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence.”

These are wild, stupid words coming from highly placed figures. Isn’t it obvious that Russia is the one being surrounded, pressured and threatened? That its military budget is a fraction of the U.S.’s, its global military presence miniscule in relation to the U.S. footprint?

But anyone watching the U.S. presidential candidates’ debates—and who can perceive the prevalence of paranoia about Russia, the unthinking acceptance of the “Putin as Hitler” theme, and the obligatory expression of determination to make America more “strong”—can understand why the expansion of NATO is so horribly dangerous.

People who do not think rationally or whose minds are twisted by arrogance can look at the maps of NATO expansion and think proudly, “This is how it should be! Why would anyone question the need for nations to protect themselves by allying with the United States? It’s alliances like NATO that preserve peace and stability in the world.”

(Some are able to believe that, perhaps, but the fact is the world has become less peaceful and far less stable than it was during the Cold War when the two superpowers checked one another’s moves. Thereafter the U.S. emerged as what a French diplomat has called an “hyper-puissance” or hyper-power intervening with impunity in multiple countries and producing new, often ugly forms of resistance.)"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

The War Against Terror comes home and goes after the Cowboys!

Repost from Gregory Krasovsky (https://www.facebook.com/gkrasovsky):

The other day, a FB friend made the following comments on the current Ammon Bundy armed stand-off in Oregon:

"Call me crazy, but perhaps the use of drone strikes against armed terrorists should begin at home."

This struck my "card-carrying member of the ACLU" nerve and I responded as follows:

[Friend] I've known you a long time. To be honest, I'm disappointed and a little frightened with your comments -- "perhaps the use of drone strikes against armed terrorists should begin at home" -- for several reasons:

1. Drone strikes have killed thousands of innocent women and children around the world.

2. Drone strikes are state-ordered executions of merely suspects (people who are innocent until proven guilty) without constitutional due process, including a trial by a jury of their peers.

3. Bundy and his followers may be naive and foolish, but they haven't killed, hurt or taken hostage any people. Moreover, they haven't struck any vital civilian infrastructure (e.g. power stations, transportation hubs) that could cause damage to people, the economy or real national security.

4. Labeling domestic protesters -- when they're armed to protect themselves against federal law enforcement (last year over 1100 people were killed by police in the U.S.) -- as terrorists supports the philosophy and propaganda of many totalitarian regimes around the world who conveniently label armed opposition as terrorists to kill or incarcerate them without due process.

5. The following confrontations between activists who challenged state and/or federal laws and law enforcement have shown that your approach of "let's bomb these nuts" leads to deaths not only of the participants on both sides but also of innocent people, including women and children

The Pine Ridge Shootout 1975
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Ridge_Indian_Reservation

MOVE Sieges of 1978 and 1985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

Ruby Ridge siege 1992
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Waco siege 1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

6. When anti-terrorist legislation was enacted after the 9/11/2001 attacks, a number of law enforcement professionals, political scientists, attorneys, politicians and human rights activists expressed concern that the ulterior motive behind such laws was not to prevent future attacks by Al Qaeda but to grant our government additional (and unconstitutional) powers to combat future domestic dissenters, protesters and activists, who would be conveniently labeled as terrorists and treated as their Al Qaeda or ISIS counterparts, regardless of their American citizenship and actions on domestic soil.

Experts were also concerned with main-stream corporate media and government propaganda that was being used to prepare the U.S. population to accept such treatment of domestic "terrorists"

Now, I'm seeing a fellow Columbia University graduate (both College and Law School!) repeat this stuff!

7. As a former police officer and an attorney, I don't condone attacks on law enforcement and don't feel sorry for people who do so without the only mitigating factor possible -- self-defense against police brutality and unjustified use of deadly force by law enforcement.

But I cannot justify either as an attorney or a law enforcement supporter the unjustified and often disproportionate use of deadly force by any government agency (federal, state or local) against protesters or activists, especially when such abuse of police powers clearly violates our constitutional rights.

8. With all that in mind, please re-consider your statement -- after you read the linked article on the greater issue of federal land use rights that has gotten farmers like Bundy and Hammonds all worked up to the point of armed civil disobedience -- as statements like yours could lead our country down the slippery slope toward a police state or a totalitarian one.

********

The War Against the Cowboys

The Oregon stand off and US imperialism

by Justin Raimondo, January 04, 2016

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/03/the-war-against-the-cowboys/

"The Hammond case has become a cause celebre West of the Mississippi, where federal control of huge swathes of real estate has become a life and death issue for ranchers and others who make their living off the land. As the feds encroach on their livelihood, they are pushing back, and nothing illustrates this better than the Hammond case.

In 2001, the Hammonds started a controlled burn on their own land to eliminate invasive junipers from ruining grazing for cattle: the fire spread to neighboring federal lands. As the Tri-State Livestock News reports:

“The first fire, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

“’They called and got permission to light the fire,’ Dwight’s wife, Susan, said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“’We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather wouldn’t be a problem.’ Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region the same day, and that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes a recording from that phone conversation.”

There was a second fire in 2006, started by Steven Hammond to counteract the lightning fires that threatened to envelope their land and their home. The Bureau of Land Management says that a single acre of federal land was affected by the fire –  and they pressed charges, even though lightning fires were raging all over the area and there was no way to determine which fires were burning what land.

The Hammonds were originally charged under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 with nine counts – including starting several other fires — but the jury saw otherwise and acquitted them of all but two counts: starting the fires they admitted to in the first place. The judge sentenced them to less than the federal mandatory, stating that what the government was asking – five years – was “disproportionate” and if imposed would’ve “shocked my conscience.”

The government wasn’t satisfied with that, and they appealed the decision. Judge Ann Aiken – the same judge who ruled that the prison system has a right to keep its safety standards confidential, even though a prisoner had died under dicey circumstances – agreed with the Justice Department, and the Hammonds must now serve full five-year sentences, minus time already served. They have agreed to turn themselves in, in spite of the protests on their behalf."

WHY are Israeli commandos risking their lives saving their sworn enemy - rescuing wounded Islamic militants from Syria?

This is Greg Krasovsky's Facebook post on the following Daily Mail article

"Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone - but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?"

The United States, other NATO countries, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel have been supporting (both openly and covertly) anti-Assad insurgents in Syria, including fundamentalist Islamic groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS (DAESH) supporters.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, the "good" intentions were overthrowing a dictator who is supported by Iran and Russia (not to mention the majority of Syrian citizens).

So what's the result?

A country destroyed by war, hundreds of thousands killed and a perfect breeding, training & financing opportunity for ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and all sorts of other terrorists (sorry, "freedom-fighting 'moderate' insurgents," according to the Defense and State Departments, the White House and U.S. Intelligence Community) who will eventually take their fight to the countries of their enemy -- the infidels living in Europe, US and Israel.

When will this madness stop? Where's the outrage?

Did Assad present a terrorist threat to the U.S. and Europe? Did Saddam Hussein in Iraq until the U.S. invaded under false pretenses in 2003?

No! These secular dictators kept a tight ship in their country against all opposition, especially the armed fundamentalist Islamic variety.

In my humble opinion, if we want to get rid of ISIS and other Al Qaeda related groups in Syria and Iraq, all we have to do is

1. Stay out of those countries -- that means no ground troops, special forces, military advisors and/or bombings without the permission of and coordination with the legitimate governments in these countries, as well as UN Security Council approval;

2. Stop providing political, financial, logistical and military support (both active and passive) to these fundamentalist/radical insurgents

3. Force Turkey to seal the border with Syria and Iraq to stop the transit of these insurgents and their recruits & agents in and out of Turkey.

4. Stop all income to these terrorist groups by eradicating oil exports & purchases (mostly via/in Turkey) and prohibiting suspicious money transfers from Arab & Gulf states.

5. Let the legitimate governments of Syria and Iraq and their state armies eradicate these groups with foreign military support (including from Russia and Iran) provided in compliance with all applicable international law and related UN resolutions.

Am I wrong?

What's the alternative?

**********************

Selected excerpts:

"WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?

- Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world's worst war almost every night

- They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels (£8.7million)

- Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda

- MailOnline embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel and Syria

- Dramatic video filmed by MailOnline and the Israeli army shows these operations taking place

- Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel also has strategic reasons.
...
Israel insists that these treacherous nightly rescues are purely humanitarian, and that it can only hope to 'win hearts and minds' in Syria. But analysts suggest the Jewish state has in fact struck a deadly 'deal with the devil' – offering support to the Sunni militants who fight the Syrian ruler Assad in the hope of containing its arch enemies Hezbollah and Iran.
...
Another rebel, 20-year-old Mohammed, whose leg had been all but destroyed by fire from a Russian-made 'Dushka' heavy machine gun, agreed. 'Thanks to Israel for letting me in,' he said, eyeing the surgical frame supporting his shattered leg.

'The butcher Assad is my enemy. Israel is not my enemy. The one who treats you is not your enemy.' As soon as he was well enough, he added, he too intended to go back to Syria to take up arms again.

The Israeli doctor in charge of their treatment, Russian-born Professor Alexander Lerner – a leading expert in treating war injuries – did not disguise his delight at these responses.

'We are trying to build peace with our neighbours and win their hearts and minds,' he said. 'There are now 2,000 Syrians who have had their lives saved by Israel. We hope that this will change their life position. In the future, they will be more friendly to Israel and they won't want to fight us.'

Other medical staff, however, believe that the militants were lying. Issa Peres, 36, a Christian Israeli Arab social worker, said that many hospital staff resented having to treat them.

'I work with the Syrians all the time, I see and hear bad things,' he said. 'Many of them said bad words to me, that they are going to kill me, they are going to fight with the Christian community, when they are safe they will fight against Israel.

'They have destroyed churches and Christian communities in Syria. I have to care for them, it is my job. But if I'm sitting with myself, I say no, it is not right for Israel to treat them.'

Asked about the fighters' promises not to fight against Israel in the future, he said: 'I don't trust any one of them. They grew up believing Israel is their enemy, Israel is the devil. You can't change their minds by taking care of them for two weeks.'

Other Israelis are more bitter. In June, two wounded Syrian jihadis were attacked by a lynch-mob while they were being transported to hospital by ambulance. One was beaten to death, while the other suffered serious injuries.

Six weeks later, two members of the Israeli Druze community – an Arabic-speaking people found in Israel and across the Levant – were charged with murder. It emerged that the militants were suspected members of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate who had attacked Druze villages in Syria.
...
According to one senior Israeli army officer, Israel's humanitarian mission may also be part of a security strategy, aiming to 'keep the northern border quiet and our soldiers safe' by using medical treatment as an 'insurance policy'.

'The Syrians will not strike us because they know we'd stop helping them,' Lieutenant Colonel Malka told MailOnline.

'They are desperate for our medical help. They have no doctors, not even a vet. Once we treated a man who had been stitched up by a friend with a needle and thread.

'If they want our help to continue, they know they must stop anybody from attacking our soldiers and civilians.'"

Please read the rest at:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

Mourning and Justice for victims of terror attacks on Paris and Russian MetroJet Flight A321.

Greg Krasovsky's comments on Facebook:

Victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris and on Russian Metrojet flight A321 that was blown up over Egypt deserve our prayers and efforts to bring all those behind and involved in the attacks to justice.

What they don't deserve is to have their deaths and the pain & suffering of their loved ones be exploited for political ends or to bring pain & suffering to thousands (if not millions) of other innocent civilians as "collateral damage" in military campaigns that could be launched with ulterior motives.

Remember the 3,000 people that we lost on 9/11/2001? Did their deaths justify the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the elderly, women and children?

If we had a chance to ask the souls of the deceased on 9/11 whether they support the deaths of all those women and children in Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- a country that didn't tolerate, allow to operate or help found Al Qaeda until it was invaded in 2003 -- what do you think they would say?

If we had a chance to ask the souls of ~100 people who died in Ukraine's capital city Kyiv in February of 2014 during the Euro-Maydan protests whether they wanted their deaths to be used to justify a civil war in Eastern Ukraine -- a war that has already cost over 6,000 lives, including thousands of innocent women and children the majority of whom were killed by Ukrainian Armed Forces artillery, mortars, bombs, multiple rocket launchers and even ballistic missiles -- what would they say?

That their deaths were justified because heaven forbid, that region could have gotten political autonomy from the new Kyiv government in political negotiations?

Did they ever want to risk having their country turn into the Former Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya?

What will the souls of the victims of the Paris terror attacks say about the fact that many of their countries (and the allies of their countries) funded and armed extreme radical Muslim fundamentalist throat-slashing insurgents and terrorists -- terrorists who first tried to destroy their opponents in their own countries and then moved on to their traditional theological enemies - the infidels of Europe?

Would the victims of the terrorist attacks approve the fact that many of the perpetrators (residents or fellow citizens of the victims' countries) had gotten their training in Syria with weapons, uniforms and other supplies that were provided to the Syrian "moderate" opposition in part by France, Great Britain and the USA as well as their allies in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia?

I can't answer for the dead, but I do believe with all my heart that any soul who's not beyond redemption would disapprove of all government policies that involve the use of civil war, terrorism, torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and false flag operations to achieve regime change or other political and economic ends.

We can mourn the innocent victims of terror and war by making sure that no country funds or supports political regimes or groups that espouse nationalism, racism, xenophobia, religious intolerance, mob justice, extrajudicial killings, war crimes, terrorism, torture, unlawful detentions, kidnappings and crimes against humanity.

This type of prohibition and condemnation cannot be selectively applied only against groups and regimes that we, our country or our allies don't like -- it must be applied universally and impartially to all regimes and groups that victimize the innocent domestically and abroad.

Last, we cannot honor and mourn victims of terror in good faith by having their deaths lead to the creation and growth of an Orwellian police state with immoral, unlawful and unnatural mass surveillance, search & seizure, detentions, illegal renditions, black sites, prosecution and inhuman incarceration of terror suspects.

After all, you can't beat Evil with Evil, because even using "just a little bit" of the "harsh" stuff to fight terrorists could send our societies down the slippery slope toward tyranny -- as the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

So to the victims of war, terror and tyranny all I can say is this -- you will be in my prayers and I will try to do everything as a man, father, citizen, voter, taxpayer, lawyer and community activist to make sure that that we fight the plague that caused your suffering and death -- by treating its causes and pathology (immoral and illegal use of war & terror for political & economic goals) instead of treating just its symptoms with ineffective band-aids of short-lived condemnation & retaliatory bombings or worse, by fighting fire with gasoline of more wars and international military interventions.

What do you think?