Monday, November 16, 2015

Geller: The West Has Lost The Will To Live, Paris Attacks Puts Dagger Through The Heart Of Liberal Europe, Do We Really Want A War With Russia?




Geller: The West Has Lost the Will to Live


The most basic, primitive honor a nation owes to its dead is to fight to defend itself—to defeat the enemy and win. And yet the West won’t.

The West is hanging on by a thread and doesn’t even know it. We are living off the fumes of the accomplishments of our forefathers and those who fought and died in the cause of freedom and individual rights. But the thread is wearing thin. Time is just about running out.
After the murderous jihad attacks in Paris comes the predictable Western response: not resolute self-defense, but weepy candlelight vigils, protestations of unity, and hashtags. After the jihad attacks in Garland, Texas, Chattanooga, the University of California Merced, and scores of arrests of American Muslims working for ISIS (the FBI has 900 ISIS-related investigations currently ongoing), our top priority should be to crush the enemy.
Instead, we get pathos and pitiful memes. NBC reported: “Paris residents were using the hashtag #PorteOuverte — French for ‘open door’—on Twitter to offer safe haven to strangers stranded after a string of deadly attacks Friday night.” Everyone is congratulating himself over this hashtag. “Twitter users in other countries,” NBC added, “also began using the hashtag to share their delight that social media was being used for a good cause”—colossal stupidity.
“Share their delight?” This delight is misplaced. I would expect nothing less than that Parisians should offer safe haven: just because savages are at war with us doesn’t mean that we should be less human.
This hashtag is just the latest in an endless stream of manifestations of the sophomoric, embarrassing, preening self-indulgence that is endemic in our sick culture. It is reminiscent of “Boston Strong”: Really? How? After the Boston Marathon jihad bombings, the media and Boston elites refused to call the attack jihad. The Boston city government refused repeatedly to run our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) counter-jihad ads, but run vicious Jew-hatred ads regularly. We are en route to the Supreme Court compelling Boston to run our ads. What’s strong about Boston? What stand did Boston take against jihad?
Equally revolting is the Eiffel Tower peace symbol that is circulating around. Do the leftists think the ISIS jihadis will see this and lay down their arms? If the Christians and Yazidis in Syria make the peace sign, will all be well? If the kidnapped schoolgirls—now sex slaves—make the peace sign, will they be freed? Such idiocy is an affront to every freedom-loving human being.
The endless patting ourselves on the back that citizens of Western countries engage in after a mass slaughter by jihadists is disgusting. People are crowing about hashtags and blood donations as if this is somehow new. Of course we care. We always care. That is our value system, that is a Western value. The United States of America is the most charitable nation on earth. That is who we are—although when Obama speaks about universal values, G-d only knows which ones he is talking about: those of the West or those of Sharia.
What no one is talking about is taking on these savages. That is what is so morally depraved about our response. The idea that we’re not allowed to take the appropriate measures to defeat the Islamic State is obscene. The idea that the United States of America cannot defeat the Islamic State or al-Qaeda is absurd, and the whole world knows it. But we choose not to use our strength. We choose to be victims. It’s shameful.
And clearly, since everybody knows that we are not physically weak, where is the basic dignity that any nation should have, to stand up for its own values? If nothing else, when we find ourselves involved in a war, we should fight it and finish it. You either win or you will be defeated.
Obama has aligned with the jihad force. In Syria, Egypt and Libya, and worst of all, now Iraq. He has blood on his hands. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christians, the blood of our soldiers. By abandoning Iraq, he takes on his hands the death of every soldier who gave life and limb in Iraq to defend this country. Whether you agreed with the Iraq war or not, we did it. We went in and asked the native population to help us. You cannot just withdraw and abandon those people.

Is it proper for us to defend ourselves and to take the appropriate action to defend this country? Of course. One of Obama’s historic crimes is that he allowed our superiority to deteriorate. But that doesn’t mean our enemies have disappeared, or that we cannot or should not defend ourselves against them. Just hours after Obama insisted that he had contained the “Junior Varsity team” ISIS, they laid siege to Paris. And this goes unchallenged.

When Muslims attack, the left attacks us. MSNBC, the Guardian, and Salon all ran pieces blaming the “right-wing” for the Paris attacks. Outrageous, but not surprising. The enemedia is aligned with the jihad force. As the jihad heats up in the West, the media is becoming more clumsy and desperate in its attempts to deflect attention away from the jihad and back to its favorite bogeyman, “right-wing extremists.” Now, even when the evidence of Islamic jihad responsibility is everywhere, as it is with the Paris attacks, “journalists” still find ways to put the blame on the “right-wing” that they hate far more than they do bloodthirsty jihadis, whom they don’t dislike at all.

If you have an ounce of self-esteem, when someone comes at you with a gun, you answer with force. If he is out to destroy you, you owe it to yourself to defend yourself. We need to understand that the left is as dangerous, if not more so, than the suicide bomber, for obscuring this basic fact—because leftists have the legitimacy of the mainstream, the imprimatur of respectability, and they wield this spurious legitimacy like a club to destroy all opposition to their totalitarianism.

We need to go to war against the left. We have to get that into our heads. We have to accept that terrible reality. They want to destroy our freedom. They want to destroy our country. They want to steal our children. That’s war. There is no one on the right who has the correct philosophy about this. The left demands the right to lie, and they are lying to the American people on a massive scale, even to the extent of making people think there is something wrong with loving and defending our nation.


The idea that the Paris attacks happened on the eve of a global conference not on the gravest threat to freedom, not on the global jihad, but on climate change, speaks to how unreal and sick we are as rational beings. Even worse, as if that weren’t bad enough, you have a presidential candidate saying that climate change is responsible for terrorism. And the very serious talking heads in the mainstream media are reporting this with a straight face.


The fact is, global jihadists, whether they’re ISIS or al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah, are monstrous aggressors. We don’t have to wait for the first sign that they are attacking; they have declared war against us. They must be destroyed. We can’t complain about what we should or shouldn’t be doing, we have to correct it. This idea of containment, as Obama claimed the other day to have “contained” ISIS, is absurd—an intermediate state.
There is no intermediate state. It’s either/or. This is war. We have to fight it.






The Paris attacks that killed at least 128 people on Saturday night will put renewed pressure on Europe Schengen agreement and threaten the “very essence” of the European way of life, as far-right parties seek to capitalise on the attacks, analysts have warned. 
ADVERTISING
With Paris now enduring this second major terror bloodbath in under a year, questions are now being asked about how much longer both Europe’s open border system and vision of a tolerant, multi-cultural society can survive. 
“With Paris in lockdown and France closing its borders, we can see all too clearly that what is at stake here is the very essence of our way of life in Europe,” said Davis Lewin, the deputy director of the Henry Jackson Society, a conservative think-tank.

Designed to facilitate the free movement of goods and labour that is the economic life-blood of the continent, the Schengen system has also enabled the easy transfer of both weapons and, potentially jihadist fighters, across those same borders. 
Following the attacks, Francois Hollande, the French President also re-imposed border controls in a bid to ensure that none of the Paris terrorists or their support network in France were able to escape, as occurred after the Charlie Hebdo atrocity. 
Even before the Paris attacks, Donald Tusk, the EU president, had warned that Europe faced a “race against time” to save the 20-year-old system, which is seen as one of the Union's most concrete achievements.

In the last few months Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have all re-introduced some form of border controls in order to try and regulate the flow of migrants – many from Syria and Iraq – as they flooded into Europe. 
The security risks posed by open borders were highlighted by both the Charlie Hebdo attack and the botched Thalys train attack earlier this year, when in both cases the weapons used in France had been smuggled in from Belgium.

At the height of the migrant crisis last September, Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader said the migrants flooding into northern Europe were a threat to British security.

“My concern is that Isis have actually said that they will use the migrant wave to flood Europe with half a million of their jihadi fighters,” he said in a radio interview, “Now even if that’s wrong, even it its only 5,000 - even if it’s only 500 - I am very worried about that.”

Still, the Paris attacks are likely to harden the views of Eastern and Central European leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Slovenian’s Miro Cerar , who have openly rejected the notion of a tolerant, multi-cultural Europe espoused major core nations like Germany, Italy and France.

Mr Lewin of the Henry Jackson Society, warned that unless liberal governments were more open about confronting the threat posed by militant Islam to European societies, they risked losing the argument to the real hardliners.

“It’s all very well to have a compassionate, multi-cultural vision in principle, but in practice we do not seem to know who is among us, and whether they share our values.

“The political classes cannot keep saying – as Merkel is saying – that ‘there is nothing to see here’, that the problem is not related to Islam, when everyone can perfectly well see that it is. 
“If mainstream governments keep letting cultural sensitivities stand in the way of a robust assessment of the situation, then the far-Right will only exploit this issue further, and turn to ever more reductionist and populist solutions.”








Washington continues making an international fool of herself by her inability to effectively counter the impression around the world that Russia, spending less than 10% of the Pentagon annually on defense, has managed to do more against ISIS in Syria in six weeks than the mighty US Air Force bombing campaign has done in almost a year and half. One aspect that bears attention is the demonstration by the Russian military of new technologies that belie the widely-held Western notion that Russia is little more than a backward oil and raw material commodity exporter.


Recent reorganization of the Russian state military industrial complex as well as reorganization of the Soviet-era armed forces under Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu’s term are visible in the success so far of Russia’s ISIS and other terror strikes across Syria. Clearly Russian military capabilities have undergone a sea-change since the Soviet Cold War era.

In war there are never winners. Yet Russia has been in an unwanted war with Washington de facto since the George W. Bush Administration announced its lunatic plan to place what they euphemistically term “Ballistic Missile Defense” missiles and advanced radar in Poland, Czech Republic, Romania and Turkey after 2007. Without going into detail, BMD technologies are the opposite of defensive. They instead make a pre-emptive war highly likely. Of course the radioactive ash heap in such an exchange would be first and foremost the EU countries foolish enough to invite US BMD to their soil.

Then came the highly provocative US-instigated coup d’etat in Ukraine in February 2014, installing a cabal of gangsters, neo-nazis and criminals who launched a civil war against its own citizens in east Ukraine, an ill-conceived attempt to bring Russia into a ground war across her border. It followed two UN Security Council vetoes by Russia and China of US proposals for No Fly zones over Syria as was done to destroy Qaddafi’s Libya. Now Russia has surprised the West by accepting the request of Syrian President Bashar al Assad to help eliminate the terrorism that has ravaged the once-peaceful country for over four years.

What the Russian General Staff has managed, since the precision air campaign began September 30, has stunned western defense planners with Russian technological feats not expected. Two specific technologies are worth looking at more closely: The Russian Sukoi SU-34 fighter-bomber and what is called the Bumblebee hyperbaric mortar weapon.


The plane responsible for some of the most damaging strikes on ISIS and other terror enclaves in Syria is manufactured by the Russian state aircraft industry under the name Sukhoi SU-34. As the Russian news agency RIA Novosti described the aircraft, “The Su-34 is meant to deliver a sufficiently large ordnance load to a predetermined area, hit the target accurately and take evasive action against pursuing enemy planes.” The plane is also designed to deal with enemy fighters in aerial combat such as the US F-16. The SU-34 made a first test flight in 1990 as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the Yeltsin years caused many delays. Finally in 2010 the plane was in full production.

Clearly the aircraft is impressive as it has demonstrated against terrorist centers in Syria. Now, however, beginning this month it will add a “game-changer” in the form of a new component. Speaking at the Dubai Air Show on November 12, Igor Nasenkov, the First Deputy General Director of the Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced that this month, that is in the next few days, SUKHOI SU-34 fighter-bombers will become electronic warfare aircraft as well.


Nasenkov explained that the new Khibiny aircraft electronic countermeasures (ECM) systems, installed on the wingtips, will give the SU-34 jets electronic warfare capabilities to launch effective electronic countermeasures against radar systems, anti-aircraft missile systems and airborne early warning and control aircraft.


Russia’s advances in what is euphemistically termed in military jargon, Electronic Counter Measures or ECM, is causing some sleepless nights for the US Pentagon top brass to be sure. In the battles in eastern pro-Russian Ukraine earlier this year, as well as in the Black Sea, and now in Syria, according to ranking US military sources, Russia deployed highly-effective ECM technologies like the Krasukha-4, to successfully jam hostile radar and aircraft.


Lt. General Ben Hodges, Commander of US Army Europe (USAREUR) describes Russian ECM capabilities used in Ukraine as “eye-watering,” suggesting some US and NATO officers are more than slightly disturbed by what they see. Ronald Pontius, deputy to Army Cyber Command’s chief, Lt. Gen. Edward Cardon, told a conference in October that, “You can’t but come to the conclusion that we’re not making progress at the pace the threat demands.” In short, Pentagon planners have been caught flat-footed for all the trillions of wasted US taxpayer dollars in recent years thrown at the military industry.




Thereafter, in April, 2014, one month after the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation, President Obama ordered the USS Donald Cook into the Black Sea waters just off Crimea, the home port of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, to “reassure” EU states of US resolve. Donald Cook was no ordinary guided missile destroyer. It had been refitted to be one of four ships as part of Washington’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System aimed at Russia’s nuclear arsenal. USS Donald Cook boldly entered the Black Sea on April 8 heading to Russian territorial waters.


The Rossiyskaya Gazeta went on to write that the Russian SU-24 “did not have bombs or missiles onboard. One canister with the Khibin electronic warfare complex was suspended under the fuselage.” As it got close to the US destroyer, the Khibins turned off the USS Donald Cook’s “radar, combat control circuits, and data transmission system – in short, they turned off the entire Aegis just like we turn off a television by pressing the button on the control panel. After this, the Su-24 simulated a missile launch at the blind and deaf ship. Later, it happened once again, and again – a total of 12 times.”



While the US Army denied the incident as Russian propaganda, the fact is that USS Donald Cook never approached Russian Black Sea waters again. Nor did NATO ships that replaced it in the Black Sea. A report in 2015 by the US Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office assessed that Russia, “does indeed possess a growing EW capability, and the political and military leadership understand the importance…Their growing ability to blind or disrupt digital communications might help level the playing field when fighting against a superior conventional foe.” Now new Russian Khibini Electronic Counter Measure systems are being installed on the wingtips of Russia’s SUKHOI SU-34 fighter-bombers going after ISIS in Syria.


A second highly-advanced new Russian military technology that’s raising more than eyebrows in US Defense Secretary ‘Ash’ Carter’s Pentagon is Russia’s new Bumblebee which Russia’s military classifies as a flamethrower. In reality it is a highly advanced thermobaric weapon which launches a warhead that uses a combination of an explosive charge and highly combustible fuel. When the rocket reaches the target, the fuel is dispersed in a cloud that is then detonated by the explosive charge. US Military experts recently asked by the US scientific and engineering magazine Popular Mechanics to evaluate the Bumblebee stated that, “the resulting explosion is devastating, radiating a shockwave and fireball up to six or seven meters in diameter.” The US experts noted that the Bumblebee is “especially useful against troops in bunkers, trenches, and even armored vehicles, as the dispersing gas can enter small spaces and allow the fireball to expand inside. Thermobarics are particularly devastating to buildings — a thermobaric round entering a structure can literally blow up the building from within with overpressure.”

We don’t go into yet another new highly secret Russian military technology recently subject of a Russian TV report beyond a brief mention, as little is known. It is indicative of what is being developed as Russia prepares for the unthinkable from Washington. The “Ocean Multipurpose System: Status-6” is a new Russian nuclear submarine weapons system designed to bypass NATO radars and any existing missile defense systems, while causing heavy damage to “important economic facilities” along the enemy’s coastal regions.


Reportedly the Status-6 will cause what the Russian military terms, “assured unacceptable damage” to an adversary force. They state that its detonation “in the area of the enemy coast” (say, New York or Boston or Washington?) would result in “extensive zones of radioactive contamination” that would ensure that the region would not be used for “military, economic, business or other activity for a long time.” Status-6 reportedly is a massive torpedo, designated as a “self-propelled underwater vehicle.” It has a range of up to 10 thousand kilometers and can operate at a depth of up to 1,000 meters. At a November 10 meeting with the Russian military chiefs, Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would counter NATO’s US-led missile shield program through “new strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses.” Presumably he was referring to Status-6.

US Defense Secretary Carter declared on November 8 in a speech that Russia and China are challenging “American pre-eminence” and Washington’s so-called “stewardship of the world order.” Carter added that, “Most disturbing is Moscow’s nuclear saber-rattling,” which in his view, “raises questions about Russian leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons…”
Not surprisingly, Carter did not mention Washington’s own very loud nuclear saber-rattling. In addition to advancing the US Ballistic Missile Defense array targeting Russia, Carter recently announced highly-advanced US nuclear weapons would be stationed at the B├╝chel Air Base in Germany as part of a joint NATO nuclear program, which involves non-nuclear NATO states in Europe hosting more than 200 US nuclear warheads. Those NATO states across Europe, including Germany, have just become a potential Ground Zero in any possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Perhaps it’s time for some more sober minds to take responsibility in Washington for restoring a world at peace, minds not obsessed with such ridiculous ideas of “pre-eminence.”








The Syrian peace talks in Vienna, over the weekend, produced an agreement between all parties, and it constitutes a major defeat for the United States, because the result is entirely in accord with the longstanding Russian position, which the U.S. government has consistently opposed, that only the Syrian people should have the right to determine who will, and who won’t, be able to run in Syrian elections. 

The AP headlined on Sunday, November 15th, “Syrian Legislator Praises Aspects of Plan to End War,” and quoted Syrian parliamentarian Omar Ossi, head of the parliament’s reconciliation committee, as telling the AP that “the plan has many points that ‘run in harmony’ with Assad’s position.” What Ossi objected to was that some nations are “betting on the issue of toppling the Syrian regime by military force,” instead of by allowing democracy to determine the result.

On Saturday, November 14th, the crucial second round of the Vienna talks on resolving the crisis in Syria ended with a joint statement in which all 17 of the participating countries agreed that in six months, Syria must have a transitional government, and that 12 months after that, there will be a Presidential election to determine the country’s leader.

The key sticking-point until this weekend had been whether Syria’s current President, Bashar al-Assad (whom even Western polls show to be overwhelmingly supported by Syria’s population) would be allowed to be a candidate in this election. The U.S. said no, Russia said yes.

Up to that time, the U.S. had consistently insisted that Assad must be removed from office. However, after the Paris terrorist bombings on Friday the 13th, Secretary of State Kerry indicated that the United States might cease to insist on Assad’s removal. Russia, and its allies, Iran and Syria, had already made clear, and they continued to hold, that there be simply no agreement if the U.S. and its allies (including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE — all very active participants in that war to overthrow Assad) continued insisting on having a right to dictate who may and who may not run in this election. Russia and its allies insisted that only the Syrian public has a right to determine Syria’s leader — that no foreign powers do. 

Though the United States position had continued to be supported by America’s allies, the U.S. Secretary of State himself finally decided to accept the position of Russia and its allies, Iran, and Syria, so that the more pressing issue of terrorism may be addressed, in the wake of the Paris bombings.

In recent weeks, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has repeatedly condemned the U.S. position as “disrespect on international law,” and saying that it “is not acceptable. It’s not fair.” That’s how blatant America’s opposition to democracy in Syria had been (until now): blatant enough to cause even a person in his position to condemn it in public.

On 1 January 2016, the UN will then convene formal negotiations between the Syrian government and its political opponents who are not involved in terrorist activities. Obviously, defining who those parties are will be highly contentious between the U.S. and its allies, and Russia and its allies.
On 14 May 2016, free elections will be held in Syria, administered by the UN.







Also see:

















No comments: