“It certainly looks that way. You know Putin told the world at the U.N. meeting, ‘We can no longer tolerate the state of affairs in the world.’ So he told the United States, Europe, and the other puppet states such as Canada, Australia, and Japan that Russia will no longer tolerate this. And two days later they (the Russians) have taken over the situation in Syria.
Essentially the United States is responsible. This (warring force) is the group that came out of the forces we created in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi. And when Russia blocked the intended U.S. invasion of Syria, Obama sent these people to Syria and pretended they were a free Syrian army of oppressed Syrians who were fighting to liberate their country from a dictator who used chemical weapons against his own people.
But the United States lost control of them, even though Washington’s clandestine operations still seem to supply them. So basically the Russians have said they can’t tolerate complete and total chaos in the Middle East and it’s going to stop before it engulfs Syria…
As Russia continues its extensive bombing campaign in Syria, the war has quickly developed into two separate fronts. One is being fought with soldiers and airstrikes, and the other front is a pure propaganda blitz.
Not only are both sides fighting to win Syria, but they are fighting to convince the world that their actions are just. As part of this conflict, both sides are waging an information war that began in earnest as soon as the first Russian bomb reached its target. The Russians claimed that they had bombed ISIS strongholds, while the US government was adamant that they had just blown up moderate rebels. President Obama has even gone so far as to say that Russia’s air campaign is strengthening ISIS. The first shots of the information war had been fired.
In his first public comments since Russia launched anti-terrorist airstrikes in Syria, US President Barack Obama was fiercely harsh, claiming that Moscow’s military operation was counterproductive and is not distinguishing between Islamic State targets and the so-called moderate opposition.
The US leader accused Russia of weakening the Syrian rebels’ chances of eventually toppling President Assad’s government and somehow strengthening ISIS as a result.
“The moderate opposition in Syria is one that, if we ever going to have a political transition, we need. And the Russian policy is driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are decapacitated and it is only strengthening ISIL,” said Obama.
In other words, he is throwing a tantrum over the fact that the Russians aren’t discriminating between ISIS and the supposed moderates that are in our pocket. In the same breath he admits that the Pentagon’s efforts to train and equip these forces has been a failure, because they’re primarily targeting Assad and not ISIS.
Well isn’t that a convenient mistake? And he wonders why the Russians might try to destroy the American proxies that are currently fighting against their chief ally in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the Russians have shot back by calling out the Washington establishment for their phony efforts to destroy ISIS. After only three days of airstrikes, they claim that ISIS is on the run, while after months of daily airstrikes our military hardly left a dent in ISIS. Logically, this can only mean one thing. Our government never intended to destroy ISIS.
Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament’s international affairs committee, took to Twitter on Friday and said the United States is not bombing ISIS.
“McCain accused us of striking out at US-trained insurgents… However, since they have either run away or joined al-Qaeda, hitting them is a mission impossible,” Pushkov wrote on his Twitter account.
“The US-led coalition spent a whole year pretending they were striking ISIL targets but where are the results of these strikes?” Pushkov asked during and interview with France’s Europe 1 Radio.
Max Boot, a neocon ideologue at the Council on Foreign Relations, admits the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS is primarily smoke and mirrors.
“Obama’s strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working… (because) the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained,” Boot wrote for Newsweek in February.
Essentially, our government has spent the past year stirring the pot in Syria and Iraq, and nothing more. At best our bombs are just a distraction, and at worst they are wrecking the infrastructure of Syria.
Time will tell which side is going to win this information war between the Kremlin and Washington DC. Right now though, it looks like Washington is getting licked. They claim that they’re dedicated to fighting ISIS, but their actions speak otherwise. All they’ve ever done in the Middle East is sow chaos and try to overthrow Russia’s allies. If the Russians actually manage to rout ISIS, the reputation of our government is never going to recover. They will have lost the information war.
You know what “extremism” means for Obama: patriots. You can get all the background on Obama’s disregard for American sovereignty in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.
This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.
The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?
After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in.
Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”
This internationalist character was brought to the fore by the fact that the Strong Cities Network was launched on September 29 not at the White House or the Department of Homeland Security, or at the FBI headquarters or anywhere else that might be fitting for a national project, but at the United Nations.
Even more ominously, the DoJ press release says that the Strong Cities Network “will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.”
Sub-national and international: the press release then quotes Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo, Norway, a participant in the Strong Cities Network, saying: “To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance. To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”
But what is that greatest threat, exactly? Remember, the DoJ presser says that the SCN will “address violent extremism in all its forms.” It also says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.” “Building social cohesion” is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.