Thursday, December 03, 2015

Turkey Tries To Lure NATO Into War Against Russia

Obama poodle Erdogan dooms Turkey as U.S. proxy war spirals out of control    

By Eric Zuesse

When Turkey shot down a Russian bomber in Syria on November 24th, Turkish officials did so with the confidence that America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO, would protect Turkey against any possible military retaliation by Russia. And, so, Russia restricted its retaliation to merely economic measures.

Erdogan: The face of WWIII
Sunni Turkey is the increasingly fundamentalist and anti-Shiite NATO member-nation; and, as such, it's doing what it can to draw the rest of America’s anti-Russian alliance, NATO, into a war by all of them to defeat Russia, because Russia is allied with the Shiite-led nations of Iran and Syria – nations that the Sunni aristocracies (especially the Sauds of Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis of Qatar) want to control, so as to have complete dominance over the Islamic world. Once they achieve that, they can then overtly and publicly support their jihadists to take over Western nations, as well, so as to establish the intended global "Caliphate."

Turkey’s government is doing all it can to bring down the non-sectarian Shiite leader of its neighboring nation of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.

America’s war to take over Russia (first taking down Russia-ally Saddam Hussein in 2003, then Russia-ally Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, then Russia ally Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, and now trying to take down Russia-ally Bashar al-Assad) is therefore being tugged at by NATO’s lone Sunni member Turkey. Turkey wants America and ‘the West’ to join their (and their Sunni friends, Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s) anti-Shiite war, so as to unify the Islamic powers as being all-Sunni, and thus enable them together to crush the other religions and beliefs.

Back in the year 1744, the gang-leader Muhammad Ibn Saud and the rabidly anti-Shiite cleric Muhammad Ibn Wahhab swore an oath to each other in which Wahhab’s clerics would approve the Sauds’ right to rule, if the Sauds adhered to Wahhab’s teachings and waged war against Shiites, and spread the Wahhabist Sunni faith so as to create a Wahhabist Caliphate. This created what became Saudi Arabia. (Outside Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism is called Salafism.)

The United States allied with the Sunnis (Saudi Islam) in 1945, when the British were losing control of Arabia. Sauds had the oil America needed; America had the weapons Sauds needed. During recent decades, Sunni oil aristocracies (especially the Saud family, such as via "Bandar Bush") have increasingly come to control the US aristocracy, which controls NATO, CENTCOM, and the European Union.

However, recently, the (previously illegal in Turkey) Islamic political party of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took over Turkey in 2003 with him as Prime Minister, and in 2014 with him as a President. Turkey has been rising within the Sunni alliance, because Turkey now carries the Sunni banner straight into the Western military alliance itself: NATO. For the first family of global Sunni Islam, the Sauds, this is now a likelier path to victory than is enabling Sunni Pakistan to stockpile nuclear weapons. Even with nuclear weapons, Pakistan has remained absent world power – those nuclear weapons terrify only the neighboring Hindu nation, India.

When Turkey was admitted into NATO in 1952, it entered as being the only Islamic-majority nation that had a non-religious, a secular, government, which had been established in 1922 by the non-sectarian military leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Consequently, until 2014, when Erdoğan took over Turkey and re-established the fundamentalist-Sunni Turkish nation, Salafist, there was no direct representative of Islamic war-aims inside NATO. These are specifically war-aims against Shiite rulers – the present leaders of Iran and of Syria, in particular. The Sunni-fundamentalist agenda is therefore entirely in accord with Washington’s agenda against the Shiite-allied nation of Russia.

 Until Erdoğan took full control of Turkey in 2014, the Sauds and the Thanis shared leadership of the anti-Russian powers along with the United States. Turkey had no oil, nor anything else that was of strategic significance to the West. Turkey’s international power was thus inferior to that of the oil-sheikhdoms.

Erdogan polishes his Shiite credentials

However, now that there is a fundamentalist Sunni nation, the new Turkey, inside NATO, Turkey joins those two fundamentalist-Sunni nations, alongside the US, as one of the Big Four nations in the ongoing war against Russia: US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and now Turkey. What Turkey has access to, which the Sauds and Thanis don’t, is the military resources of the entire 28-nation bloc, NATO.

Obama determined to provoke WWIII with Russia using
Erdogan as the foil
Consequently, with more fervor than ever before, the United States, and its European followers, are currently trying not only to crush Russia but to crush Shiite-led Islamic-majority nations, especially Iran and Syria. This is the consequence of Turkey’s not merely Islamicization but Sunni Islamicization. Turkey now has a decidedly religious motive for bringing NATO to war. ‘God’ and war go great together. NATO could actually now become the non-religious dog that might be wagged by its fundamentalist Sunni-religious tail. 

Even the royal families of Saudi Arabia and of Qatar didn’t possess access to such power. They were never able to get into NATO.

They had oil, and America had weapons, and that was the only deal. But now, Turkey is the Salafist member of NATO – as if the Sauds were now in NATO (something the Sauds’ longstanding jihadism – and their funding of Al-Qaeda – prohibited).

If NATO is to be anti-jihadist, Turkey will have to be expelled from NATO.

Turkey as a jihadist nation violates NATO’s charter. If Turkey remains within NATO, then NATO violates its own charter. Today’s NATO is a threat to the peace even of the 27 non-Salafist member-nations of NATO.

The danger that the US (and its European allies) will be dragged into a World War III against Russia, because of the West’s bonds that had been established with Turkey prior to Turkey’s recent Islamicization – these bonds ignited by the machinations (such as the recent shoot-down of the Russian bomber) from Erdoğan – is recognized in official Washington.

Christina Lin, a long-time Western scholary observer of Turkey’s strategic moves, is becoming alarmed that the increasingly overtly Islamic NATO member Turkey is trying to drag NATO towards war against Russia on behalf of Turkey and other Sunni Islamic powers, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She is disturbed that together, the three Sunni Islamic nations of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, are trying to bring down the non-religious Shiite leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, for reasons that actually have nothing to do with NATO’s official purposes.

Turkey and NATO would be easily overrun by the
former Warsaw Pact forces
Lin has served at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the Department of State, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the federally funded Institute for Defense Analyses. On November 24th, she wrote: "As NATO member Turkey is transforming from a secular, democratic system to one of an increasingly Islamist and autocratic presidential system under Erdogan, it appears the alliance is also transforming from a value-based alliance of human right, democracy, and rule of law to one that is increasingly interest-based."

In other words: she is coming to think that these Sunni Islamic powers are having success using their sole NATO representative, Turkey, as their wedge to provoke a Third World War, against Russia and its allies. She opens her commentary by mentioning, though only in passing, Turkey’s recent shoot-down of a Russian bomber.

She continues: "As [Turkey’s Islamic President] Erdogan embarks on expanding Turkey’s sovereignty through Islamist proxies in the Eastern Mediterranean (e.g., via Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza, Salafi Army of Conquest in Syria), continues occupation of EU member Cyprus, and violates EU member Greece’s territorial airspace and waters, his personal ambition is posing a risk for the NATO alliance." She concludes: "As Erdogan continues to goad NATO to stand in solidarity with Turkey and its territorial expansions in the Levant, it appears the world is now entering a dangerous new phase of an increasingly post-western and illiberal world order."

She quotes former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, the retired German General Harald Kujat, as asserting, "Turkey wants to provoke [NATO Article 5 on mutual defense]… Turkey basically wants to drag NATO into this situation because the actual goal of Turkey is to neutralize [euphemism for overthrowing the non-sectarian Shiite ruler of Syria, Bashar Al] Assad" – to replace Assad with an Islamist Sunni, allied with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, no longer allied with the secular nation of Russia, which stands for separation of church and state (something that’s anathema to all fundamentalist nations, because all fundamentalisms seek rule by God, not by the given nation’s citizenry).

A nation such as today’s Turkey being in NATO is absurd, at best.

America’s President, Barack Obama, is being torn by this. Either he will continue to support the Sunni jihadist powers, who want NATO to go to war against Russia and its allies; or else, he will decide that his desire to crush Russia will have to take a back seat now, to his desire to crush Sunni jihadists, even though he has been supporting the overthrow-Assad Sunni jihadists (such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and all of the other groups now fighting to overthrow Assad in Syria) ever since becoming President in 2009.

Here is how America’s allies against Russia operate, while Obama complains of Assad’s "barrel bombs" and of the sarin gas attack in Syria that Obama himself had actually sponsored (if not planned) in order to have a ‘pretext’ to bomb Syria’s infrastructure. Now that NATO clearly violates NATO’s peace-sustaining charter, there is another reason to end NATO besides the fact that NATO’s very reason for being, the threat posed by the communist Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, ended in 1991. The continued existence of NATO makes no decent sense at all. NATO now has jihadists in its midst.

But how can an organization such as NATO now is, be brought peacefully to an end? Or can it even be done? And, if not, then why not?

Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952. How can it be expelled? And, if it cannot, then how can NATO dissolve itself? Because one thing is for sure: NATO doesn’t preserve any peace (such as to which its charter is devoted). NATO instead poses the very real danger of precipitating and waging an entirely unnecessary nuclear war, World War III.

The European nations that are being torn apart by millions of refugees that fled wars the US precipitated are insane to stay within NATO, especially if Turkey remains within NATO. All European leaders who accept that situation are traitors to the nation they supposedly represent. As for America’s leaders, they have long been on the warpath.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Syria Airstrikes Vote : Britain To Begin Bombing Within Hours After MPs Overwhelmingly Back Action

Obama poodle Cameron leads UK down the road to WWIII in Bush/Blair Iraq war redux - as the Chilcot report gathers dust  

By Ben Riley-Smith and Michael Wilkinson

Hilary Benn spearheaded a show of defiance against Jeremy Corbyn on Wednesday as MPs voted in favour of air strikes against Isil in Syria following his call to “confront this evil."

War criminals Blair, Cameron
The House of Commons voted by 397 to 223 in favour of extending RAF action across the border from Iraq. 

The margin of victory was far great than expected and included 66 Labour MPs, 11 of whom were shadow ministers - further undermining Mr Corbyn’s position. 

The victory for David Cameron meant that eight British tornado jets will immediately begin launching strikes from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Two jets took off from the base within an hour of the vote. 

The vote followed a rousing speech from the shadow foreign secretary in which he said Britain must attack the “fascists” of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant because “we never have, and we never should, walk by on the other side of the road”.

As Mr Benn sat down to cheers from Labour and Tory MPs, Mr Corbyn stared ahead and refused to applaud. 

MPs from both main parties shouted “outstanding” and “brilliant” and Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, called it “one of the truly great speeches” in parliamentary history. 

Following the vote, Mr Corbyn said: “British service men and women will now be in harm’s way and the loss of innocent lives is sadly almost inevitable.” 

Labour said Mr Corbyn was still in control of the party but described the vote as “very worrying”. 

Mr Cameron said that MPs had taken the "right decision to keep the UK safe". 

Cameron dances to Obama's tune setting the stage for WWIII and the destruction of the UK

More than a third of the shadow cabinet rejected Mr Corbyn’s calls to oppose the war and voted alongside the Government. 

Those joining Mr Benn included Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, Tom Watson, the deputy leader and Heidi Alexander, the shadow health secretary. 

Mr Benn was on Wednesday night facing a vicious online backlash from hard-left activists as he was accused of “betraying” the Labour Party. 

However, there were also warnings that any military action would have to involve British troops on the ground.

Lord Hague of Richmond said it could be necessary to deploy ground troops to defeat Isil. “[We] should not rule out the use, perhaps, of small specialist ground forces in the future, from Western nations, if that helps to tip the balance on the grounds,” he said. 

And Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said that without effective local participation, “we may have to face again the unpalatable option of deploying Western combat units on the ground at some point in the future."

How quickly the UK forgets 
Mr Benn’s impassioned speech was the culmination of a 10-hour debate in which Labour MPs and party grandees defied Mr Corbyn to back Mr Cameron’s call for air strikes. 

Mr Benn said: “We know they are plotting more attacks. The question for each of us is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self- defence?” 

He added: “As a party, we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility to one to another. We never have, and we never should, walk by on the other side of the road. 

“And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculating brutality but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt, they hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt, they hold our democracy –the rules by which we will make our decision tonight – in contempt. 

“And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.” 

He was joined by party grandees including Alan Johnson, the former home secretary, and Dame Margaret Beckett, the former foreign secretary, who spoke in support of Mr Cameron’s plan. 

Mrs Beckett, who served under Tony Blair, said: “We are being asked to agree to act both in Iraq and Syria precisely because that is what Daesh do and their headquarters is in Syria. We are being asked to make a further contribution to an existing international effort to contain Daesh from extending the mayhem and bloodshed that accompanies their every move even more widely."

In remarks clearly aimed at Mr Corbyn and his allies, she said: “Some say simply innocent people are more likely to be killed. Military action does create casualties, however much we try to minimise them. So should we on those grounds abandon action in Iraq, even though undertaken at the request of Iraq’s government, and it does seem to be making a difference? Should we take no further action against Daesh, who are themselves killing innocent people and striving to kill more every day of the week? Or should we simply leave it to others?” 

Opening the debate, the Prime Minister urged MPs to vote for military action against the “woman-raping, Muslim-murdering, medieval monsters” of Isil. 

The marathon parliamentary session came 27 months after MPs refused to back a campaign against the forces of Bashar al-Assad. 

However, in the wake of the Paris attacks last month, Mr Cameron decided that he should make a new attempt to become involved in Syria. There are 10 countries – including the US and France – countering Isil in Syria.

The open defiance against the Labour leader came as MPs faced intimidation from Mr Corbyn’s supporters. 

Stella Creasy, the Walthamstow MP, yesterday said her staff were “abused” by campaigners and a protest was held on Tuesday night in her constituency. Minutes after the debate finished, Miss Creasy said on Twitter: “Hilary Benn’s speech has persuaded me that fascism must be defeated. I will hold a public meeting on Sunday to discuss Syria.” 

Other Labour MPs told how they were subjected to threats from activists hoping to reduce support for strikes. 

In unprecedented scenes, Mr Corbyn opened the debate for Labour by opposing air strikes – only for Mr Benn to close the debate by supporting intervention. 

As Mr Corbyn criticised Mr Cameron’s “ill-thought-out rush to war” and suggested that bombing in Iraq should be stopped, Mr Benn shook his head in disagreement with his leader. 

Mr Corbyn infuriated MPs by suggesting that the terror attacks in Paris and the downing of a Russian passenger aircraft in October were because of those countries’ decisions to bomb Isil in Syria. 

Only seven Tory MPs opposed the air strikes. 

Julian Lewis, who chairs the Commons defence select committee, criticised Mr Cameron’s claim that there are 70,000 Syrian fighters who can take on Isil.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.