THEY COME AS FRIENDS AND AT THE APPOINTED HOUR STRIKE! By Intibah Kadi. 30 April 2017

THEY COME AS FRIENDS AND AT THE APPOINTED HOUR STRIKE!
By Intibah Kadi. 30 April 2017

Over the past few years Joshua Tartakovsky gained the trust of many in our movement, including quite prominent members who made videos and wrote articles with him or for him. This is no judgement on our comrades as these type of operatives are professional. On exactly what date Joshua suddenly morphed back into his original form, I am unsure, but his recent article about Syria shows his vicious, Israeli attitude to his enemy Syria.

Dear Comrades, this is a warning to you. We have experienced countless such agents from many different but probably related entities including the huge Christian Zionist movement that Zionism relies on for its existence, some strange fascist and fake Left groups from a few corners of the world, the Unification Church (the “Moonies”) and so on. I have no idea about the budget in Israel, but in the USA the budget for creating fake videos about Syria and for paying operatives to infiltrate our movement on the social media is enormous. The figures are mind boggling.

We actually had our first serious experience of this strategy in the Syria online defence movement in the first half of the War on Syria when agents attempted to sway us all away from respecting and supporting the allies of Syria. The operatives still remain among us and are protected unfortunately. That’s when a few of us began to come under serious fire as we exposed their plans.

Having respect for a Professor who avidly read anything new Ghassan wrote in order to speed up his big learning curve about Syria in those early days, I asked him why some of our new rising stars from the West support or even work with an agent from this duo whose Syrian partner’s fingerprints, according to several highly informed Syrians, only fit that of Rifa’at al Assad. The opinion offered was that as long as the agents or suspects make the right noises about Syria, bar the condemnation of Syria’s allies, then they have free game to roam around our community. In my opinion that is, at the very least, poor leadership coming from the Western supporters pro-Syria camp

Back to Tartakovsky. Like a true operative, he created a story of redemption about himself. That was in late 2014. He rapidly gained the trust of so many. Joshua is a graduate from the London School of Economics and another one of these who applied to Stratfor for employment and hence, courtesy of Wikileaks dump on Stratfor, we got access to his CV.

Joshua appears to not be formally employed, doesn’t get paid for media appearances, travels incessantly, runs an add free website from a stand-alone server, and had oodles of cash to pay contributors to his, “gianalytics” website (seems to be gone now with another one getting established). He paid much more than anyone else apparently and hinted at wanting exclusivity. We know the payment scale as Joshua tried to recruit Ghassan Kadi after one of his employees recommended Kadi. Fortunately, already I had worked out that something wasn’t right with Joshua and Ghassan politely declined. On offer back then was 150 Euros for “6k or more characters without spaces, or 100Euros for 2.5kor more characters without spaces”.

So, Joshua launched himself into our movement in late 2014 and, by 2015, with his seemingly endless resources, travelled to many hot spots in the world and set himself up in Greece. Just from his FB posts, and who knows how many other travels went unannounced, he travelled to these places in that year; January he was in Hungary and Ukraine, February around Greece, April in Poland and Russia (Moscow) and then Donetsk, in May he was again in Moscow, then July in New York, and zipped back to Donetsk a few days later, then back to Moscow in October and again to Donetsk and then on to Cuba and so on. Apparently he was desperate to get into Syria.

I believe I am quite diligent with my investigations into matters that I think threaten the State of Syria but more so inside the FB Syria Defence community as that is my main forum for defending Syria. I don’t do things out of vindictiveness. I inquire and act on things based on facts. So at the end of January 2016, I respectfully approached a Professor, knowing he is close to some of Joshua’s employees. I gave the evidence and he agreed that definitely this Joshua was “almost certainly an Israeli agent” and that maybe we should have a FB page to share information on “these types”. He told me that he informed a close friend who is a “gianalytics” employee and that indeed he was employed to write “pro-Syria and pro-Iran” stuff. So that was good.

And here is the wash that became so typical in our online movement.

Evidence is shown, the facts are glaring at members of our community, but, they go into denial. The irony is that when it suits their comfort zone, many are adept at research and exposing issues that the main stream media lies about, but engage in “suspension of disbelief” when an inconvenient “conspiracy” is staring at them or has actually engulfed them.

I thought the evidence I had provided and the endorsement of the Professor would alert all to quit their jobs at “gianalytics” but alas, it didn't happen and even worse, shortly after one of our Syrian icons made a video with Joshua. I am sure, had she been given the evidence I provided, she would have steered clear from this Joshua.

(1)What is the lesson here?

(2)What was the ultimate aim of Tartakovsky when he re-modelled himself late 2014 to become “one of us” and then pushed the “eject” button later on?

(3)Why did he go about with all his cash and resources to collect all the well-known writers and analysts in our community, allowing them the freedom to write their stuff on his website?

(4)Was it all some very elaborate information collecting project?

(5)Did he develop close relationships with those he paid to publish and did he learn a lot from them that was of intelligence use?

(6)How do we apply these learnings in this case in order to be more aware of other threats around us?

I welcome discussion on this.

The link to the latest and most damning article of Tartakovsky concerning Syria is attached below

http://joshuatartakovsky.com/why-does-israel-supports-rebels-in-syria/

THE REAL MUSLIMS By Ghassan Kadi. Re-published from early 2016

Katehon had published this over a year ago but decided to re-publish it

http://katehon.com/article/real-muslims

THE DOUBLE-TRIPLE-QUADRUPLE-CROSSING TRUMP By Ghassan Kadi 18 April 2017

 THE DOUBLE-TRIPLE-QUADRUPLE-CROSSING TRUMP

Ghassan Kadi

18 April 2017

In his latest article about Trump's U-Turn, Ghassan Kadi is combining Trump's behaviour in Syria and Korea, and with Russia and China, and analysing the situation from a different take.

http://thesaker.is/the-double-triple-quadruple-crossing-trump/

also inhttp://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/04/18/the-double-triple-quadruple-crossing-trump/

The Double-Triple-Quadruple-Crossing Trump:

40677 ViewsApril 18, 2017 59 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Trumps recent and sudden 180 degree turn on a number of international issues is mind-boggling, to say the least. But, if we connect the dots it becomes easier to get into the mind of the pragmatic billionaire-turned-President.

First and foremost, we must thank Obama for the “if” state of mind he gave us about Trump. Many analysts, including myself, felt hopeful when Clinton was defeated and Trump won. Given the Obama disappointment, we all learnt to reserve our enthusiasm and make optimistic statements on the condition of “if” Trump kept his promises; which we now know he obviously did not. Whether he did not, could not or did not want to in the first place, makes no difference at all because, at the end of the day, he did not keep his promises of reducing world tension and conflict.

When analysts sit and try to explain why was it that the Trump administration suddenly decided to bomb Syria, with the “chemical attack” as aside, they have been forgetting that, out of the blue, and for no reason at all, and just a few days before this incident, the Trump administration made very strong pro-Assad statements.

That was a prelude for the upcoming Xi Jinping visit. Trump wanted to present to the rest of the world that he was working against ISIS primarily, with Russia and even with Assad.

That was all meant to change the moment the Chinese Tiger laid foot on American soil.

The scenario that I am speculating on involves a direct American role in the Chemical attack, otherwise the timing would have been an almost impossible feat.

Let’s wind back the clock a bit. Soon after his inauguration, Trump told the Russians to tell the Syrians that he was prepared to stop total support for ISIS and have it eradicated on condition that Syria and Russia guarantee that they will reciprocate by kicking Iran and Hezbollah off Syrian soil. I have written a whole article about this called “The Race for Raqqa”.

The Russians and the Syrians were not either prepared to back-stab their allies or prepared to give America a central and pivotal role in the Levant. In other words, Trump’s outcries fell on deaf ears to his sheer dismay, the accomplished business man, who is not used to taking “no” for an answer. That “no” that Trump received from Russia marked a pivotal point in as far as his future relationship with Russia is concerned. For a simple minded person who judges complex international events and diplomats as being “bad”, “good” and “tough” amongst other school playground expressions, he had to make a stand to prove that he was “tough”.

Trump’s message to Xi Jinping was clear, stop supporting Russia and the USA will give you a “better deal”. The Chinese leader’s response was even clearer; don’t blame America’s problems on China and don’t interfere with our international diplomacy.

In the middle of the negotiations between the two leaders, Trump wanted to give his Chinese counterpart a clear preparedness on his part to dump Russia and any future collaboration with Russia as a prelude for closer and better relationships with China. What better way did he have than do a 180 degree turn and attack Syria, with Russian troops on the ground, and only a few days after endorsing Assad’s Presidency and fate?

The Tomahawks that hit Syria were not launched to inflict major damage because Trump clearly cannot afford to escalate the situation there between America and Russia to the point of no return. Trump’s attack on Syria was simply a message for China, telling China “for me to gain your support I am prepared to do crazy things, including dumping Russia”.

When Tillerson went to Moscow a few days after the attack on a pre-scheduled visit, he had nothing to say in defense of that attack and left Moscow “agreeing” that this should not happen again in a manner as if he was saying it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.

The big fish that Trump wants to fry is not Syria. Even though in his stumbling, awkward arrogance, he may attack Syria again if he feels he needs to.

It is as if Trump is courting two potential partners; Russia and China. He tried to strike a military deal with Russia on Syria but he failed. But he also tried to strike a much more complex deal with China but this is also failing.

Ideally, Trump wants China to let go of its Island development program in the South China Sea and abandon its BRICS based economic and other strategic alliances with Russia. China is not biting.

Comes the MOAB.

There was no strategic or logical explanation or gain behind Trump’s orders to drop a MOAB on Afghanistan. It was a simple show of force and determined mentality of aggression at any cost.

Trump now wants to bring the war closer to China’s borders. He wants to turn Korea into Obama’s Ukraine. The stalemate in Ukraine will eventually give way. If NATO was going to do something against Russia it would have done it already. The new hotspot is Korea.

What Trump hopes for is a that a war against North Korea will give him enough justification to blockade China’s sea trade routes all the way down to the South China Sea under the guise of military necessity.

Trump seems confident that he can blow a devastating strike on North Korea and then follow this up with a blockade that covers the entire China Sea, north, middle and south. In his short-sightedness and arrogance, he thinks that nuclear North Korea is not going to be able to retaliate and that China will sit idle.

What is to happen in the next few days, weeks or months is going to be pivotal in deciding the short term future of humanity on this planet.

At best, the bottom line behind Trump’s new moves, if he is truly continuing to uphold the slogan of “make America great again”, is that he realized now that the American economy has been destroyed beyond repair and that he needs drastic measures, including limited nuclear wars, to restore America’s dominion. By the same token, by now, Trump would have realized that it is really the Deep State that is in charge and for him to secure his survival as President, he has to tow the line.

Irrespective of what is driving Trump; the Deep State, financial pragmatism, the shrinking global influence of the United States or any other factor or combination of the above, Trump is playing a very dangerous game which may prove to be a decisive game of Russian Roulette of global reach.

Trump is up against Russia and China, not to forget the smaller powers of North Korea and Iran. In the Levant you can add the Syrian Army and Hezbollah to the equation. Is the ailing USA up to the task? Rational thinking implies the contrary. Irrespective, the consequences of the interaction of all of those powers at play is something that we as citizens of the world have no other option but to sit back and watch.

THE RACE FOR RAQQA By Ghassan Kadi 4 April 2017

THE RACE FOR RAQQA

By Ghassan Kadi

4 April 2017

Just as the War on Syria approaches its end and just as the anti-Syrian cocktail has failed in every step in every way, America and Israel are having a one last ditch attempt to make some face saving gains and this time they are focusing on Syria’s allies. Ghassan’s article is about what seems to be in the effort to reach a deal that is based on keeping both ISIS and Iran out of the region.

http://thesaker.is/the-race-for-raqqa/

The Race for Raqqa

22280 ViewsApril 04, 2017 41 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Barely two months into his office, Trump is still facing a very hostile environment around him both domestically and internationally. Many of his domestic election promises have been kept to the pleasure of some and dismay of others, but on the international front, his emerging policies are, for better and for worse, still developing.

Some pundits believe that it is only a matter of time before Trump turns against Russia even more vehemently than his predecessor. Some even argue that he already did. The truth is that his stand towards Russia is giving confusing messages; but is it really?

Trump thus far remains adamant about working with Russia, and with Syria for that matter, against ISIS. So what has changed?

In the lead-up to his presidential election win and all the Democratic Party accusations regarding different types of association with Russia, even some pro-Russia analysts believed their enemies’ lies and thought that once elected, Trump was going to walk away from the Levant and give it to Russia on a silver platter. Well, this did not happen, and it wasn’t meant to happen.

This is not to mean that Trump is not quitting before a fight either. Thus far, all indications are that he is not looking for a fight; instead, he is looking for leverage.

The leverage he is seeking is more than a simple face-saver. He wants America to weigh in as far as the final talks regarding the end of hostilities in Syria is concerned.

Only a few days ago, I heard on the grapevine that a deal has been struck between America and Russia, one that is based on a trade-off; ISIS for Iran. It didn’t make much sense then, and it still doesn’t, because it is clear now that this deal has not yet been struck; it has only been touted.

Without paying too much attention to the sequence of events, Trump made very early hostile and unprovoked remarks towards Iran. That was his way of showing his Israeli and Saudi allies that he shares the same anti-Iranian passion they have. That was also his way of telling Putin what the new administration redlines are; and Iran is certainly high on the list.

Certainly, the Saudis jumped on the opportunity and felt euphoric. After all, they feel that they had been badly let down by Obama who would not take decisive action in Syria against President Assad. The Saudis are either naïvely triumphant or simply unaware of what is around the corner for them. Trump’s anti-Iran passion is perhaps only equaled, if not surpassed, by his anti-ISIS passion, and he is not shy from saying that it was Arab/Muslim oil money that funded ISIS. Simply put, whilst many thought that the Saudis were going to be the first on Trump’s international “hit-list”, they have in reality only been renegaded to the second position; because right now, Trump can use them and he is going to get all the mileage he can before he turns against them.

The Saudis, who have never been masters of foreign diplomacy nor intelligent by any measure, are under the illusion that their relationship with the United States has been restored. Little do they realize that they are being walked on a leash and straight into the slaughter house.

This is where the race for Raqqa begins and we are yet to see where it ends.

Unlike Mosul and before that Aleppo, different powers can end up kicking ISIS out of Raqqa. This includes the Americans (aided by loyal Kurds), the Syrian Army (aided by Russia, Iran and loyal Kurds) and the Turks.

Syria’s redline is ISIS.

Russia’s and Iran’s redline is also ISIS.

Turkey’s redline are the Kurds.

The Kurds’ redline depends on which Kurdish faction

But America’s additional redline is Iran.

Turkey announced recently that operation Euphrates Shield has ended. Erdogan seems to be stepping out of Raqqa to see how the others play the game. His troops are poised to go back in, though they never really left, but he wants to distant himself from the Raqqa battle for now.

On the other hand, America is saying to Syria, Iraq and Russia; if you want ISIS out of Syria and Iraq, we will help, we will guarantee it, but you must reciprocate by keeping Iran out of Syria and Iraq.

It is on these lines that the battle for Raqqa is drawn; each side trying to score as much as possible militarily so he can have a bigger say.

The recent huffing and puffing on part of America, Israel, and even Syria herself has been along these lines. Only Russia is playing it cool, at least thus far.

No one can be sure of what is happening within the diplomacy corridors behind the scenes. America is possibly arguing that serious attempts to quell all forms of radical Islam should not keep Iran off limits. The Russians and the Syrians will find this argument difficult of defend ideologically. The Russians and the Syrians will find it even more difficult to argue against this if America presented preparedness and willingness to sacrifice Saudi Arabia in the overall deal.

America will perhaps try to push harder and present a comprehensive Middle East road map, one that includes Lebanon and makes disarming Hezbollah part-and-parcel of the overwhelming deal. There is little doubt that given the very little that Israel and the US have on the ground in the Levant at present, they will be prepared to let their loyal Kurds down, let Turkey down, let Qatar and Saudi Arabia down, fight ISIS till the end, restore full Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty, if this can guarantee for the American Israeli duo clipping the wings of Iran and removing Hezbollah from the scene. The recent statements America made about the future pf President Assad as one that needs to be decided by Syrian people is only one little aspect of the new and bigger direction America is seeking.

America and Israel will be hoping that Russia will be able to convince both of Syria and Iraq that this is a good deal and that it is a win-win situation. The Kurds as a whole will lose regardless of who wins as they always did. Turkey will be feeling left out whether such a deal comes to fruition or not. Syria will not accept being swayed into walking away from her allies. Iran will not accept to be demoted after it has scored many diplomatic and military wins. Saudi Arabia will be elated to see the prospect of Iran dragged down the gutter before it realizes that it is the second sheep in line. Hezbollah will not let down arms and sees this whole scenario a question of life or death.

It is conflicts of this magnitude that create wars, and as the race for Raqqa looms, arms will be twisted and skulls will be crushed, and in the end, it is the people, ordinary men, women and children who pay the price.

OBAMA'S LEGACY OF FAILURE Ghassan Kadi 19 December 2016

OBAMA'S LEGACY OF FAILURE
By Ghassan Kadi 
19 December 2016

Ghassan Kadi's latest article which gives a scathing assessment of the legacy of Obama from the view point of a Levantine with a twist of humour in it.

http://thesaker.is/obamas-legacy-of-failure/

Obama’s Legacy of Failure

24565 ViewsDecember 19, 2016 56 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

In his recent article titled “Obama Out Not With a Bang, But a Whimper”, and in his regular eloquent and expressive style, Pepe Escobar nailed it. More need not be said about the Obama legacy, but this man, Obama, has had a personal effect on me, one that I cannot let go of without putting down on paper my own views of his infamous legacy.

I am by no means an expert on all international wheeling and dealing that American administrations do. And speaking of Pepe, I have read with great interest his articles about how the Empire has been involved in different forms of intervention in Brazil, Pepe’s homeland. And to pre-empt comments that will argue that Obama has inherited a huge mess from his White House predecessor, I will take all of those issues on board and “confess” that this article is about the general perception of the Obama legacy from an outsider’s view; especially from a Levantine like myself.

To evaluate Obama, we have to wind back the clock to the time when he put his hand up for the Democratic Party nomination. Is this guy for real? Many, including myself thought. After all, not only he was of African roots (ie black), but his name was not exactly Jesse Jackson or even Martin Luther King. His name was Barack, in fact an Arabic word, which means “bright”, and his surname is Obama; a far cry from Smith. But what is even “worse”, is that his middle name, his father’s “Christian” name was not even Christian; it is the Muslim name Hussein.

That guy, by virtue of his name, not necessarily skin colour, had no chance to lay a foot onto the White House floor, I and many others thought.

History proved all the pundits to be wrong, and admittedly, Obama led a very effective campaign against the Republicans. After two terms of having a moron by the name of George W. Bush (GWB) in the White House, two unfinished and unwinnable wars, a crumbling economy, Americans were ready for a change. The youthful, eloquent, extremely intelligent candidate Obama presented himself to be anything but a part of the “establishment”. With his amazing gift of speech, he won the hearts and minds of not only Americans, but also many overseas.

His “Yes We Can” slogan was very effective to bring home the concept that if Americans unite, they can do what seems to be impossible.

Soon after his inauguration, he was quick to go to Egypt to talk to Arabs, specifically Muslims, to tell them that America was on the verge of taking a new direction in its Middle East policies.

He chose Egypt because despite its position post Camp David agreement with Israel and the peace treaty that followed, despite the fact that for decades after that Egypt was regarded in the eyes of the Muslim World as a “traitor” of the cause, Egypt remained to be the Arab World’s leading country at many levels. Moreover, Egypt houses Al-Azhar University, the most highly acclaimed University for Islamic studies worldwide.

So everything about this young President seemed different, and love him or hate him, even his staunchest of critics regarded him as being such. Even the Nobel Prize committee could not overlook that difference and the hope it brought humanity to the extent that they jumped the gun, rather prematurely as history proved, and rewarded the man with a Nobel Peace Prize.

I must admit that I was one of millions worldwide who hoped that Obama was going to derail the traditional American foreign policies and set them on a new course. Even the very savvy Israeli leaders were worried that he would.

It didn’t take too long however to see that in effect Obama changed his slogan from “Yes We Can” to “No I Cannot”. What is even worse, is that in the not too distant future, his slogan seemed to have change again to “No I Would Not”.

When he finally admitted that he was unable to close down Guantanamo Bay prison, I remained hopeful that he would make a dignified speech and resign. But he did not, and even had the audacity to run for a second term.

Once again, in pre-empting comments that will “defend” Obama and talk about his domestic achievements; Obama Care and the like, I must admit selfishness and proclaim that when it comes to Obama Care, I don’t care. This is not to mean that I do not support proper government-funded health care programs; especially for the underprivileged, but with America being the leading nation of the world, the nation that wants to be the only superpower, its national health program, or lack of it, does not affect the rest of the world; and this is fact. The policies that American administrations undertake, and which interest the world outside the USA, are those pertaining to foreign policies, and nothing else does.

During his first term as President, one could easily observe how his great vision of being “the one” that will save America and the world was gradually and surely eroded.

In fact, a good analysis of Obama’s Cairo speech and what followed it is a clear indication that the only achievement of Obama’s visit to Cairo was to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and give them cover. In effect, his visit was not a formal visit to meet the head of the state (Mubarak). Rather, his meeting was with the opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, and on their turf, Al-Azhar University, greeting them with “Assalamu Alaikom” (peace be upon you), the traditional Muslim salute. Whilst in effect there is absolutely nothing wrong at all in America opening up to the Muslim World for a change, however the chain of events that followed that speech only indicate that the speech was the first step towards the infamous Arab Spring turned-sectarian, anti-secular pan-Arab series of devastating wars. That speech had many subtle messages, and to think that Obama did not choose his words carefully would be rather impossible to fathom. When he mentioned that he endearingly remembers as a young boy growing up in Indonesia how he listened daily to the Azan (call to Muslim prayer), he was stirring up Muslim emotions, that he knew very well that only fundamentalists would respond to, and can respond to, in the manner that they did. Bluntly, he gave them the green light; “revolt, and I understand you”. That was his version of “Yes We Can” to the Muslim World. The rest is history.

Soon after taking off the “Yes We Can” hat and replacing it with the “No I Would Not” hat, a process that did not take very long at all, Obama stopped worrying about how to be the good President he promised the world to be. So not only he became a part of the “establishment”, but also its face, mouth piece and apparatus.

The irony that followed is that not only he failed to be a good President, but he also failed to be a bad President.

Speaking of bad Presidents, we need a yard stick, a bench mark, and perhaps GWB is that yard stick with a score of 10 out of 10. His “excuse” was his much lower than average IQ, but at least he was good at being a bad President. But Obama could not reach this score either. Perhaps he scores 7 or 8 out of 10.

When GWB decided to go to war, twice, he did. Those were disastrous wars not only for Iraq and Afghanistan but for the rest of the world including America itself, but this is how bad Presidents are made. But when Obama decided to declare war on Libya and Syria, he went there half-hearted. On one hand, he wanted to change regimes, but on the other hand he did not want to invade. And whilst regime change succeeded in Libya, it failed abysmally in Syria and nearly half a million people died as a result.

This is not in any manner, shape or form a criticism for him for not invading Syria, but a criticism of his incompetent, reluctant and spineless character. If anything, I feel extremely delighted that he failed in Syria, and Syria’s inevitable victory is not only the outcome of her resilience and the support of her international friends, especially Russia, but it was also the outcome of Obama’s failure. This win, and American failure with Obama at the helm, will see a whole change in global polarity and the end of the New World Order as we know it; partly courtesy of Obama.

Obama’s stand on Syria is not much different from his stand in Ukraine and the South China Sea. Take the world to the brink of war, and then step back; not totally, but the Obama style.

And what about his stand on Yemen? This is the war that the world remembers to forget. Obama will not support the Saudis enough to win but he won’t stop the carnage either. In the meantime, tens of thousands of Yemenis have perished and millions are facing starvation; again, courtesy of Obama and cohorts.

The impact of Obama’s action and inaction on America’s traditional opponents is in reality infinitesimal in comparison to the confusion and traps that he has set for America’s traditional allies. I will leave it to Western European analysts to write about Obama’s legacy with the EU, but it is suffice for me to say that Obama’s policy in creating a needless tension between Western Europe and Russia is best described as an “after me the flood” policy. He is now walking away, leaving behind Western Europe with a flood of refugees and a huge crisis with Russia and a surging right wing reaction. In the Levant/Middle East, America’s traditional allies are Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Obama angered Israel with his nuclear deal with Iran, and yet he did not enact it. He also angered Saudi Arabia by the same deal, and added insult to the Saudi injury by not responding to their calls to help them out of their mess in Syria and in Yemen. As for Turkey, he almost completely severed American ties with the NATO member that has the second largest army after the US, and left Erdogan closer to Putin’s Russia than he is to Obama’s America. After the recapture of Aleppo by the Syrian Army, Erdogan is now even losing his popularity in the Sunni Muslim World; again and again, courtesy of Obama care-not. This is needless to say that hardly a week goes by without a massive suicide attack hitting the streets of Turkey.

Some might argue that Obama’s reluctance in making decisions that meant a higher level of involvement is the result of wisdom, but wise leaders to do not stoke fire in the first place and then sit back to watch it go wild. Obama’s reluctance is due to the fact that the “world’s most powerful man” is an incurable hesitant, recalcitrant, hopeless, hapless and incompetent wimp.

With a series of failures scattered across the globe, the capitulation of the Jihadists that he sponsored and abetted in Aleppo was the icing on the cake that Russia and Syria offered to him as a farewell gift to his tenure at the White House.

Obama failed to be a good President and he was too weak to even be remembered as a bad President. He will probably be remembered as the most spineless American President in history.

His only achievement perhaps is that he taught us to never feel confident about any hope coming from the White House. This is why when it comes to Trump, we need to exercise this caution. Whilst it is true that many of the steps and declarations that President-elect Trump has made were done after his election win and not before, and whilst therefore they are not election promises per se that were made to gain votes, and whilst it is also good to keep in mind that more than likely he means those promises because he had no reason to make them otherwise, we must always remember Obama’s disappointment. As we analyze Trump therefore, we must qualify our analysis by saying “if” he keeps his promises.

That was Obama’s single legacy of success, a legacy of instilling doubt in the White House even when a seemingly “extraordinary” President takes its residence. At all other levels, Obama leaves nothing behind but a legacy of failure.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS AND THE PEACE MOVEMENT GONE? By Ghassan Kadi. 10 Dec 2016

WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS AND THE PEACE MOVEMENT GONE?
By Ghassan Kadi. 10 Dec 2016

http://thesaker.is/where-have-all-the-flowers-and-the-peace-movement-gone/

Where have all the flowers (and the Peace Movement) gone?

33907 ViewsDecember 10, 2016 137 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Love or hate the Hippie era, it was definitely different, and it heralded the beginning of a new type of awakening in the West, and this time the awakening was not against the Western Church(es), but against the establishment.

It is not by accident that this movement climaxed when the Vietnam War reached its zenith, and the more Johnson and later on Nixon intensified the US-led attack on Vietnam, the louder and the more vehement Western youth grew in pronouncing their outrage about the actions of their governments.

The rebels who were seen by the upper crust as bearded, greasy, dope-smoking, LSD-using, promiscuous bunch of young boys and girls of California were not alone. They were joined by a world-wide movement. When Mohamed Ali refused to fight in Vietnam, he became an instant hero and an inspiration for other celebrities of influence. Bolstered by the horror of war and domestic American tragedies such as the assassination of Dr. King, the rise of the Black Rights Movement, and of course pop culture where former Beatle John Lennon played a big role and his song “Imagine” was transformed into a de-facto peace manifesto and the song “Give Peace A Chance” became like an anthem the youth sang in groups of tens of thousands marching the streets of major Western cities demanding peace.

Unable to mobilize its own people, unable to stop the very intense Viet Kong resistance, eventually the US military drive had to capitulate, and the flower power managed to help ground the B-52’s, and Kissinger was forced to go and talk peace terms as a loser.

Such was the might of peace activism. And it was fought at different fronts; including Hollywood. People of my age group cannot forget movies such as “Soldier Blue”; a turning point Western in which the Native Americans were the good guys for a change. And of course, who can forget the movie “Billy Jack”, the Woodstock happening and movie and many, many similar anti-establishment movies and events?

The course of history was changing as it were, and the awakening was enabling Westerners to see the hypocrisy of their governments and their inhumane treatment to native cultures and other cultures globally. The military slumped to its lowest level of respect in the eyes of the people of the West.

If we fast forward to 2003, we can also clearly remember the hundreds of thousands of Westerners who filled the streets of major cities protesting against the “Coalition of The Willing” and its drive to invade Iraq. But Western politicians did not worry much about those protests, because they were not organized like the previous protests of the 1960’s and 70’s. This is because in between the seventies and the first decade of the current century, many changes have taken place that have seen the peace movement vanish.

When the Falklands/Maldivas war broke out, to the dismay of the then UK PM Maggie Thatcher, the BBC was too embarrassed to support the war and reported it with impartiality. It beggars belief that the same BBC has later on engaged in fabricating evidence against the Syrian Government and engaged in beating the drums of the establishment on Ukraine.

A serious change has happened in between; a change in outlook, and a change in perspective.

If my personal recollection is of value and relevance, I recall my outrage seeing the movie “An Officer and a Gentleman” back in 1982. For the first time in more than a decade, a Hollywood movie glorified the military. What is going on? I wondered. Then “First Blood”- turned-Rambo came in, followed by a series of gung ho movies including “Black Hawk Down”, “Broken Arrow”, and the list goes on and on. Any such movies made in the 60’s or 70’s would have been shot down and ridiculed by critics and viewers, but the critics and viewers of the 80’s onwards were not the same as the critics and viewers of a couple of decades ago. Only Oliver Stone kept carrying the torch.

This article is not about offering a critique of Hollywood or Pop Music. It is about the mass Western mentality that seems to be so much under the control of Hollywood, music, and the infamous mainstream media (MSM).

This situation is auspiciously reminiscent of a Hippie era song title by Peter Paul and Mary; “Where have all the flowers gone?”

For seven and a half decades we did not hear a single American President speak of putting an end to the foreign intervention policy until Donald Trump did just a few days ago.

For decades, peace activists and their supporters worked hard, rallied, fought riot police, went to jail, got tortured and killed, and all of this just to end one specific war or to avoid another from erupting. Never before have we heard of a possibility of all American foreign intervention wars, present and future to end.

Whether or not Trump will keep this promise is something to be seen, but what is mind boggling, and I dare say sinister, is that not a single peace activist seems to have made any positive comment.

Where have all the flowers gone?

Not even the Dalai Lama made a whisper of hope in the wake of Trump’s proclamation. Even Greenpeace seems none-the-wiser, probably because Trump is not “green” leaning and mocks global warming.

Does the world prefer an American President who on one hand acknowledges global warming but does nothing about it, and then turns around and fills the planet with the smoke and pollutants of war?

Do the so-called peace activists of today prefer to see mutilated human body parts than to hear a politician saying that he does not believe in climate change?

And what about the Holy Pontiff? Isn’t the Pope of present times meant to be the most ardent advocate for humanity? How does he explain his silence? Does anyone ask why is he silent?

The silence of all of those who allegedly promote peace is dubious to say the least. If there was a shred of truth to their love for peace, they would have an obligation to promote and praise, or at the very least acknowledge whoever pledges to end wars. Their silence speaks volumes and reveals hidden true colours.

Obama received a whole Nobel Peace Prize possibly for just speaking in Cairo and for promising to close down Guantanamo Bay prison. At the end, he reneged on the latter and his trip to Egypt and the talk he gave only invoked the so-called Arab Spring and thereby empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. Will Trump win a Nobel for promising to end all American interventions? If he keeps his word and actually does stop all future American interventions, will he get a Nobel Peace Prize then?

And the European NATO allies who are reminding Trump of his military obligations, have they not had enough wars? Are there more countries left for them to pillage? How many more millions need to die before their thirst is quenched? How many more refugees does the EU want to help create? Are they truly stupid enough not to see that they are reaping the fruits of their own actions?

And now that America seems to have had enough after seventy five years of continuous wars that followed the infamous Pearl Harbor day, who in his right mind wants to keep the torch of war lit?

The flower power that brought down America’s invasion of Vietnam is no more. The flower has lost its petals. Its stem has shriveled, its aroma has long gone, and its spirit is dead.

Today’s so-called peace activists are mostly and unwittingly pawns in the hands of Soros and other magnates. They move them and keep them under control, because in controlling them, they control the masses.

This is where all the flowers have gone.