Puppet MastersS


Take 2

Next move? ISIL and Syrian "moderate" rebels agree on ceasefire

Timothy Alexander Guzman
Global Research
Sun, 14 Sep 2014 21:50 UTC
Image
Well, Well, Well, what do we have here?

According to a new report by Agence-France Presse (AFP) "Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday."

What will the Obama administration do now?

Originally President Obama said in a televised speech that he will support "military assistance to the Syrian opposition."

Here is what he said:
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all.
Read More...
Evil Rays

Lavrov: U.S. trying to sabotage EU-Russia economic ties


Russia Beyond The Headlines
Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:13 UTC
Image
© Reuters / Sergei KarpukhinSergei Lavrov, one of very few voices in a political position on the world stage to call the U.S.'s actions for what they are.
The United States is seeking to take advantage of the crisis in Ukraine to break economic ties between the European Union and Russia and impose supplies of its natural gas on Europe at prices significantly higher than the Russian ones, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

"America wants to take advantage of the current situation in order to economically tear Europe off from Russia and get as favorable conditions as possible in the context of the ongoing negotiations on concluding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement," Lavrov said in an interview shown on the TVC television channel on Saturday.

Negotiations on the matter have lasted for years, and the Europeans have persistently defended their interests, believing that Washington sought to gain unjust benefits for itself in concluding this agreement, he said.

Comment: Lavrov's statement reflect only one of many of the ways in which the U.S. is attempting to undermine and ultimately destroy Russia's economic health and long-term Sovereignty. There is no mistaking it, there are great efforts being made using 'hard power,' 'soft power,' and everything in between to re-establish the U.S. as The preeminent world power - conscience and the greater well being of billions of people be damned.

See also:

Read More...
Red Flag

Is Obama's new war on ISIS illegal?

Eli Lake
The Daily Beast
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:00 UTC
In a stunning turnaround, the Obama administration is arguing that a law authorizing a war on al Qaeda be used to justify strikes on al Qaeda's foes.
Obama
© www.tpnn.com
President Obama's new war against ISIS is off to a shaky legal start.

Obama's using the law that authorized attacks against al Qaeda to justify his new fight in Syria and Iraq. One small problem: ISIS and al Qaeda are at each others' throats. Legal experts were shocked to learn Wednesday that the Obama administration wants to rely on that 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda for the new ISIS war.

"On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States," said Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it's hard to make that argument."

Ideally, when beginning a new war like Obama is doing now, the president would ask Congress to declare it. That is the approach that he took a year ago when Obama came close to authorizing airstrikes against the Syrian government as a response to its chemical weapons attacks on rebel positions outside of Damascus.

This approach is also consistent with how Obama himself campaigned for the presidency in 2008. During the campaign he told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Comment: Nothing in politics happens by chance, without a reason. Then again, many things in politics happen for lack of reason. Fact: The U.S., U.K. and Israel brought ISIS (or ISIL) into being, trained by the Mossad. It is inconceivable that this "sort of secret" intrusion into the terrorist realm would not come back to bite the Mothers of Invention. Whether ISIS is a total fake (as some say), or a brutal cabal of killer psychopaths (prevalent message), the question remains: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Unless...it was a way to covertly "fight terrorists" while gaining access to territory off limits for undisclosed reasons and, whoops please don't notice, the plan is now off course...or is it? If you are a diehard neocon, grab-hungry politician, or a mad dog...maybe this whole ugly mess is exactly according to plan. And to hell with that legal mumbo-jumbo.
---
FYI - How would you interpret the legality of Obama's executive right to action?

The following resolution was enacted after being signed by the President on September 18, 2001:

S.J. Res.23
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
      (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

      (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Read More...
Eye 1

Follow the money: How the West created IS

Nafeez Ahmed
Counterpunch
Sun, 14 Sep 2014 17:06 UTC
isis
Tools and patsies of Western intelligence.
Part 1 - Our Terrorists

"This is an organisation that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision which will eventually have to be defeated," Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon press conference in August.

Military action is necessary to halt the spread of the ISIS "cancer," said President Obama. Yesterday he called for expanded airstrikes across Iraq and Syria, and new measures to arm and train Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces.

"The only way to defeat [IS] is to stand firm and to send a very straightforward message," declared Prime Minister Cameron. "A country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers."

Missing from the chorus of outrage, however, has been any acknowledgement of the integral role of covert US and British regional military intelligence strategy in empowering and even directly sponsoring the very same virulent Islamist militants in Iraq, Syria and beyond, that went on to break away from al-Qaeda and form 'ISIS', the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or now simply, the Islamic State (IS).

Since 2003, Anglo-American power has secretly and openly coordinated direct and indirect support for Islamist terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda across the Middle East and North Africa. This ill-conceived patchwork geostrategy is a legacy of the persistent influence of neoconservative ideology, motivated by longstanding but often contradictory ambitions to dominate regional oil resources, defend an expansionist Israel, and in pursuit of these, re-draw the map of the Middle East.

Now despite Pentagon denials that there will be boots on the ground - and Obama's insistence that this would not be another "Iraq war" - local Kurdish military and intelligence sources confirm that US and German special operations forces are already "on the ground here. They are helping to support us in the attack." US airstrikes on ISIS positions and arms supplies to the Kurds have also been accompanied by British RAF reconnaissance flights over the region and UK weapons shipments to Kurdish peshmerga forces.

Comment: Make no mistake about it: the West does not really care about 'terrorism'. Terror groups are merely convenient creations of Western intelligence, to be supported when convenient (e.g., in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Chechnya, Georgia, Iraq, Libya, Syria) and attacked when convenient (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan). It's all part of one big game, but one in which countless die, in the 'interests' of belligerent nations, greedy corporate executives, and psychopathic leaders.

Read More...
Briefcase

Seeking ways to steal more: EU wants billions of euros to revive economy

Robin Emmott and Jan Strupczewski
Reuters
Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:53 UTC
Image
© Reuters/Leonhard FoegerWads of euro banknotes are stacked in a pile at the GSA Austria (Money Service Austria) company's headquarters in Vienna July 22, 2013.
The European Union sought ways on Saturday to marshal billions of euros into its sluggish economy without getting deeper into debt, considering options from a pan-European capital market to a huge investment fund.

With Europe's economy struggling to recover from the worst financial crisis in a generation, EU finance ministers tasked the European Commission, the EU executive, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to draw up a list of projects that would create growth and decide how to finance them.

"We have given a mandate to the Commission and the EIB to swiftly present an initial report on practical measures that can be taken, on profitable investment projects that are justifiable," Italy's economy minister, Pier Carlo Padoan, told a news conference.

Ministers are expected to discuss the projects and investment tools at their next meeting in Luxembourg in October.

There were no details of what those projects might be.
Read More...
Blackbox

New round of sanctions: Prelude to coup or war with Russia?

El Murid (Anatoliy Nesmeyan)
Slavyangrad.org
Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:30 UTC
Image
El Murid
Original: El Murid (Anatoliy Nesmeyan) LiveJournal
Translated from Russian by Gleb Bazov

The latest round of sanctions imposed by the European Union has essentially put an end to any discussion about the possibility of an agreement with the West. Notwithstanding all the concessions and betrayal.

The very fact that Russia faltered in Ukraine and did not defend its national interests, abandoning the Donbass region and its people to the mercy of those bent on tearing them apart, and accepting loss of face on the part of the Russian leadership and frank betrayal - all this only convinced the West that it can dictate its will by continuing to increase the pressure.

It is difficult to tell what was it that the traitors promised to the President, but it is already obvious that they deceived him. There will be no reconciliation. The problem is that now the Western pressure has ceased to have a purely Ukrainian dimension. Sanctions and their tightening are aimed exclusively at fomenting a schism in the Russian elite, at infringing on the interests of one of its parts and at whipping up an early coup.


Comment: See also:

Comment: While several commentators, such as El Murid above, have seen the Russian decision not to overtly intervene with military support as a 'betrayal' of Novorossiya, we are not so sure. If the end-game is really war with Russia (in the face of an unsuccessful coup), such a move would be playing into the West's hands, giving them what they want. It seems that Putin and his team are making some very difficult and complex decisions, weighing present realities to possible outcomes, and doing so in such a way to minimize conflict to the greatest extent possible. But as Putin has shown in Georgia and Chechnya, he knows how to take military action when it is necessary and feasible.

We also think it is unlikely that Putin is not aware of the existence of a 'fifth column' antithetical to Russia's best interests and Putin's political intentions. If Putin's hands are really being tied by the power of the oligarchs still existing in Russia today, current events may end up moving in Putin's favor. Strelkov's recent press conference may be one step in doing just that: exposing the fifth column and consolidating support for Putin's struggle against them. Of course, how it all plays out remains to be seen.

Read More...
Snakes in Suits

Stand up and say no to war

AGB/HRJ
PressTV
Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:20 UTC
Image
Battles between pro-Russia forces and the Ukrainian army are seen from Donetsk international airport.
While the United States, United Kingdom and NATO are pushing for war with Russia, it behooves people and their governments around the world to take a clear stand for peace and against violence and war, no matter where it comes from. We are at a dangerous point in our history of the human family and it would be the greatest of tragedies for ourselves and our children if we simply allowed the war profiteers to take us into a third world war, resulting in the death of untold millions of people.

NATO's decision at its summit in Wales (September 4-5) to create a new 4,000 strong rapid reaction force for initial deployment in the Baltics is a dangerous path for us all to be forced down, and could well lead to a third world war if not stopped. What is needed now are cool heads and people of wisdom and not more guns, more weapons, more war.

NATO is the leadership which has been causing the ongoing wars from the present conflict in the Ukraine, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and others.

NATO's latest move commits its 28 member states to spend two percent of their gross domestic product on the military, and to establish a series of three to five bases in Eastern Europe where equipment and supplies will be pre-positioned to help speed deployments, among other measures.

Comment: Hoping for the "political leadership" to change anything is wishful thinking. The only way anything can change is for each individual to understand the pathocracy infecting our world so we can change our mindset and rediscover our humanity.

Read More...
Question

Kiev to discuss 'local administration' of Donetsk and Lugansk


ITAR-TASS
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:58 UTC
Poroshenko
© AP Photo/Virginia Mayo
A bill on a special status of a number of territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions envisages that local administrations might take over power from the center to an extent to which it was done in Poland, President Petro Poroshenko said at an annual meeting of Yalta European Strategy in Kiev Friday.

The Ukrainian president played down concern, expressed by someone in Ukraine over a bill on a special status of a number of territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, saying "it poses no threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity"; the power will be turned over from the center to regions on approximately the same scale as it was done to local bodies of power in Poland, he explained.

Local governments will be entitled to settle language problems and control expenditures of local budgets, but the principle problems of foreign and home politics will remain in the competence of the central authorities, Poroshenko said.

It is important to hold early local election in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to have officials to represent the population of these territories, the Ukrainian president said.

He expressed hope that the Ukrainian parliament would approve the bill. Commenting on the expected bill on amnesty, the Ukrainian president said it would apply to people who committed no violent crimes.


Comment: So what, is Poroshenko planning on charging every member of the NAF, whose actions would no doubt be considered violent crimes by Kiev? As if that will go over well.


Comment: It looks like neither Kiev nor Russia want a fully independent Novorossiya. Russia would prefer a neutral, stable, unified Ukraine. While it may not mesh with the wishes of Novorossiya for full independence, could this be the first step towards the eventual de-nazification of Kiev?

Read More...
Bizarro Earth

Exposing Obama's lies about fighting ISIS

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:06 UTC
President Obama's much celebrated ISIS(L) 'strategy' speech came on Tuesday night amid great fanfare and even greater debate. Sure, he outlined a strategy, but the President has been harboring another hidden agenda - one you won't get a straight answer on.

Obama rode a wave of public outrage and fear into Tuesday's address, mostly due to the extensive media coverage of the alleged murders of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff - a drama played out on Youtube of all places. The beheadings were important in this process because they set the US military media campaign into hyper-drive. The timing in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary seemed uncanny.

Obama's public agenda is the one you can see on the table, one where the US officials promise to "degrade and destroy ISIS". Sounds great. Who can disagree with that?

Then there's the hidden agenda, somewhere under the table, and not really up for rational debate. That's probably because it's highly illegal and has something to do with what started the ISIS crisis to begin with.

This is how Obama plans to sneak back in and re-ignite with last year's failed bombing campaign that never was in Syria. He explains, "I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria."

Image
© Unknown
Read More...
Network

SOTT Focus: Behind the Headlines: Connecting the Dots - Week ending 14 September 2014

Sott Editors
Sott.net
Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:00 UTC
Sott Talk Radio logo
Sott.net editors Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley analyze global impact events that shape our world and future, and connect the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming.

From the crisis in Ukraine to the ISIS in Iraq, from increasingly extreme weather to surviving in a world ruled by psychopaths, your hosts, their colleagues (and occasional guests) explore the deeper truths driving world events by exposing the manipulations behind what passes for 'news'.

Running Time: 02:06:00

Download: MP3

Read More...