Search Blog Posts

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Book Exposes the Effort to Introduce Radical Political Philosophy into K-12 Classrooms

1st. published by CV on 30 Nov. 2011 

by Education Action Group 
 
MUSKEGON, Mich. – We’ve always known that teachers unions are very political organizations, and many of their more radical members are active in left-wing causes.
That’s their right, as long as they pursue their activities after school.

But more and more American K-12 teachers are bringing their politics into the classroom, brazenly acknowledging their effort to indoctrinate and recruit a new generation of radical, anti-American students.

“The long period of self-censorship among educators regarding class and labor issues may no longer hold,” wrote radical educator Rob Linne in his book “Organizing the Curriculum.”


“We cannot claim to be teaching for social justice if we ignore the class warfare being waged all around us. Bringing labor into the arena of K-12 education will undoubtedly meet political resistance, but an increasing number of educators are motivated to take up the challenge.”

That frightening approach to teaching is what motivated Education Action Group to publish a new book titled “Indoctrination: How ‘Useful Idiots’ are Using Our Schools to Subvert American Exceptionalism.”

You can watch a short promotional video for the book by clicking here.

The book, authored by EAG Chief Executive Officer Kyle Olson, with assistance from staffers Ben Velderman and Steve Gunn, is available on Amazon.com.

It explores dozens of examples of radical public school teachers and their politically active unions taking liberty with our children by teaching left-wing philosophy as fact.


It also illustrates how radical left-wing think tanks around the nation are producing and distributing special lesson plans that attack the fundamentals of American society and plant the seeds of class warfare in young minds.

In his foreword for the book, FOX News contributor and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris bemoans the fact that educators are willing to brainwash young minds before they have the ability to fully understand and judge issues on their own.

“We have become accustomed to hearing American history and politics misinterpreted by leftist university professors,” Morris writes. “But (now) we see the insidious indoctrination at the elementary and secondary levels. At least university students can think for themselves.

(The book) explains how 7- and 8-year-olds are taught to embrace an atheistic, leftist philosophy virtually from the time they enter school.”

I, Tomato
The book clearly illustrates that teachers unions want to create a future class of organized labor activists or sympathizers.

A curriculum produced by the radical California Federation of Teachers is called “ Golden Lands, Working Hands.”

To reverberate with its adolescent audience, the lesson features a rap video with the lyrics, “The age of railroads meant mass transportation, but did rich men make the trains of our nation? Psych! It was the working people who laid the tracks. And see who did the work and got the job done. While lazy lone ranger was out havin’ fun.”

After the minimum wage line, the cartoon character in the video falls in the grave he just dug for himself, then a pig rises out of a pile of money bags. There is nobody in the video defending the “pig” who invested the money to build the railroads and create the jobs. That would have destroyed the whole purpose of the lesson.

Younger students are not immune from these very political “lessons.”

There is a popular story/lesson plan for young children titled “I Tomato.” The main character, a tomato plant, tells readers about the loving care it received from various migrant workers, and how it was mistreated by being sprayed with pesticides.

The story gives full credit for food production to the field workers – “Juana, Dolores and Rajib; Finoy and Carlos, Connie, Lupe, Marcos and Jose Manuel – it is to them I owe my life and you owe your tomatoes.”

That’s great, but what about the investor who risked his savings to establish the farm, hire the workers and provide the necessary materials to grow the tomatoes? No mention of him.

But the kids do get a union promo at the end of the story:

“Many farm workers belong to a union,” the story says. “Do you know what a union is? If you were a worker, would you want to belong to a union? How can you find out if your fruits and vegetables were picked by union workers?”

The book also discusses Chicago teacher Kati Gilson, who taught her preschoolers about her 2011 trip to Madison to protest the collective bargaining policies of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. She also taught them new words like “strike,” “collective bargaining,” and “negotiate.”

“My preschoolers understand what a protest march is and why it is important,” Gilson wrote.

“As we gear up for what looks like a big battle it is important for us to teach our children and families why we are taking a stand.”

Is this what we pay school taxes for?

What would the Black Panthers do?

Many radical teachers obviously want their students to disapprove of the United States and mistrust their government.

One chapter in the book explores the growing pattern of teachers leading elementary children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Earth, instead of America. One educator, Rosalie Tyler Paul of Maine, wrote a piece calling for everyone to reject love of country and embrace globalism.

“We can see that the nation is not the parcel most in need of our loyalty and allegiance,” Paul wrote. “The purpose and courage we need can be found better in Earth citizenship that in nationalism.”

Wayne Au, a former Seattle high school teacher, wrote about teaching his students the story of the violent Black Panthers and their “Ten Point Program,” and encouraging students to develop their own lists of political priorities, based on modern issues.

One successful student wrote, “We want the mask of capitalism lifted and economic classes disbanded,” and “The enslavement of the middle of the lower classes by the bourgeoisie must end.” Au praised the student’s work for its “relentless attack on corporate America.”

Even school math lessons are not immune. One chapter of the book refers to “The Guide for Integrating Issues of Social and Economic Justice into Mathematics Curriculum,” by Jonathan Osler.

In his guide, Osler suggests giving a lesson about mathematical averages using casualty numbers from the war in Iraq. He suggests teaching probability by having students explore the probability that a police traffic stop will target a person of color. He also calls for a geometry lesson based on “environmental racism” that would require students to “determine the density of toxic waste facilities, factories, dumps, etc. in the neighborhood.”

Way to go, Mr. Osler. Instead of teaching a generation of youngsters to appreciate their nation and the freedom they have to make their lives better, you want to create an angry bunch of revolutionaries who are determined to destroy the very system that makes it possible to work for change.

As one blogger who reviewed our book wrote, “Olson shows that kids are being taught everything but what parents are sending them to school to learn. This is a solid book, but it’s shocking in what it uncovers.”

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The Real Newt Gingrich - Republican Congress Failures to this day, More *vid*

Gingrich has the greatest toxicity of  Georgia's  venomous serpents - the southern copperhead. It will strike the uninformed, sound-byte/catch phrase gawker, and unwary. "It" is the most toxic of any Republican to American liberty. "It" slithers amongst us and is fatal to cuddle and coax. Don't let your mind be newterized to danger. Run away from "It" when encountered.



See how much of your state's land has been seized by the federal government



Coast Guard's History of Duty Betrayals: The Case of Simas Kudirka

Betrayal by Rulers of US Sailors on the High Seas

My active service to the CG was prior to 1970, but have seen no evidence or heard of any reassurances since that any similar episode of betrayal as reported below would not again recur in the CG or any branch of our armed services. 

Military leaders, just like the corporatist/government leaders, are corrupt and will betray individual liberties if their actions will delight the globalist elite. Don't believe it? Check out the CFR membership roster for yourself. "Once a Marine, always a Marine?" Reconsider becoming an American first.

Lee Harvey Oswald Proven Innocent, Victim Of CIA Plot, Worked For RFK

by Michael Thomas
November 22nd, 2014
Updated 11/22/2014 at 4:52 pm

Lee Harvey Oswald: Unsung Hero Who Alerted JFK To ‘Assassination Plot’ In Chicago

Framed By The CIA Because He Infiltrated Their Assassination Conspiracy

Oswald Worked Directly For Robert F. Kennedy Who Authorized His Return From The USSR To Conduct Domestic ‘Counterintelligence’

The following narrative concerning the true role of Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of John F. Kennedy is both simple and complex.  Simple because Oswald was actually a very young and simple guy who was  grossly misrepresented by the government, law enforcement and the media.  Complex because an extraordinary confluence of circumstances threw him into a literal caldron of festering conflicts and complicated vendettas.

No good deed goes unpunished” is an adage that is quite applicable to the real story of Lee Oswald.  His idealistic nature and ardent search for his mission in life propelled him into the most dangerous game on the planet in the early 1960s.  Such was his naiveté and quixotic approach to life that Oswald would be thrust onto a battlefield that guaranteed he would be caught in the crossfire.  And so he was on November 24th, 1963[1].

Whatever you have heard about Lee Harvey Oswald has most likely originated with the ultra-secret CIA Assassination Team which oversaw every aspect of President Kennedy’s assassination.  More accurately, it was their Langley-based propaganda arm, as well as numerous organs of disinformation that were responsible for the entire JFK assassination coverup.  Therefore, it is imperative to suspend any and all judgment concerning Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) while reading this authoritative account.  The evidence and testimony in this exposé is as factual as it is credible and provides a penetrating insight into the modus operandi of the typical CIA assassination and/or false flag operation.

JFK Assassination: Classic CIA Execution Plan | The Millennium Report

All of these new details surrounding the true relationship between and among John F.Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald have been corroborated as much as possible at this late date.  Events and meetings have been verified via the public record.    Dates and times have been authenticated with actual news reports. Key individuals have been identified by firsthand accounts, as their accomplices have been confirmed.  Critical relationships and conspiratorial collaborations have likewise been substantiated.

In the end, Lee Harvey Oswald will be known as the unsung hero who was quite meticulously framed by the CIA, the FBI and the Dallas Police Department.  Framed because he was known by the CIA to be working very closely with the Kennedy brothers.  John Kennedy was well known for his dissatisfaction with the CIA’s incorrigible abuse of power and numerous rogue elements.  Both he and Robert were intent on eliminating all the black operations conducted by the CIA in collaboration with the Mafia and Cuban exiles who wanted Fidel Castro dead.  Particularly after the Bay of Pigs fiasco was JFK determined to rein in the CIA, if not shut it down altogether.

The ensuing, unparalleled intra-governmental feud was going on at the same time that Bobby Kennedy had declared war on organized crime, especially the Italian mafia families in New York City, Chicago and New Orleans.  After singling out the Mafia for an unprecedented spate of federal prosecutions, the Italian-American mafioso Carlos Marcello – ”Godfather” of the New Orleans Mafia — became a special target of the Justice Department. Because of the CIA’s direct collusion with this Louisiana mob figure and a NOLA clique of Cuban exiles in their attempts to overthrow the Castro regime was Oswald assigned by RFK to infiltrate that totally rogue operation. The last thing the Kennedy brothers wanted to be associated with was the unlawful assassination of another head of state — Fidel Castro.

Toward that end Oswald’s deep cover status was fiercely protected throughout the Attorney General-run sting against the anti-Castro movement which was growing more volatile by the day.  The failed assassination attempts on Castro’s life only seemed to increase the fervor of so many Cuban exiles who wanted their country back no matter how.  Some of the more fanatical were contracted by the CIA to perform as hit men and to do any other dirty work that The Company (also known as the CIA ) did not want to be directly affiliated with.

New Orleans: Where Rogue CIA Operatives, Cuban Exiles, And Louisiana Mafia Intersect

This specific inter-party dynamic and the collaboration among these three groups is crucial to understand.  They all had the same goal in mind: To take back Cuba.  After all, Havana had become a veritable oasis for the international set of glitterati, gamblers and gunrunners.  When Castro finally took over Cuba in 1959 he ended the party of all parties.  Cuba was fast becoming the major link in the burgeoning international illegal drug trade.  When he turned off the lights in the famous Havana casinos, he also terminated the illegal drug trafficking which then closed down the highly profitable Cuban market.

1959 was not a good year in Cuba for those who saw their casinos shuddered, their drug and prostitution rings broken up, their loansharking operations and protection rackets closed down, and their gunrunning terminated.  A capitalist ‘dream’ turned into a communist ‘nightmare’ with the guerrilla revolution that overthrew the exceedingly corrupt regime of Fulgencio Battista. The very nexus of all these dubious activities — transnational illegal drug trafficking — was the core business that the CIA, the Cubans, and the Mafia shared.  So profitable were their respective shares of the drug revenues that they were willing to anything — ANYTHING — to get it all back.

For the diehard Cuban capitalist, facing Castro’s firing squads was completely out of the question; hence, many an exile showed up in Miami and New Orleans, the two major hubs for the fleeing Havana exiles.  New Orleans, however, became the magnet for those fanatics who would participate in any plot whatsoever that would allow then to reclaim their former piece of Cuban paradise.  What united them more than anything was their hatred for Fidel Castro.  When the Kennedy Administration withdrew their support for this cause, the Cuban exiles redirected their intense hatred toward the President, as did the involved Mafia families and many rogue elements within the CIA.

Come the fall of 1963, these animosities had been festering for years and looking for an outlet.  All three parties — the CIA, the Cuban exiles, and the Mafia — shared the same agenda and had conveniently overlapping goals.  Each of them felt betrayed by the Kennedy’s after the Bay of Pigs debacle, although the Administration felt they had been betrayed by the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.  Nevertheless, President Kennedy fell squarely within their crosshairs that November.  All the pent up rage was quite purposefully channelled toward JFK’s demise … by those ‘stakeholders’ who truly controlled the realm.

This photograph was taken in a nightclub in Mexico City on 22nd January, 1963.
All of the men in the photograph are members of Operation 40, a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored undercover operation in the early 1960s. The group was initially formed to seize political control of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. It’s primary function included an ultra-secret CIA assassination team that was mobilized to execute heads of state, politicians, military officers, etc. in nations identified for regime change.

The ‘Cuban Angst’ Context Is What Compelled Bobby Kennedy To Employ Lee Harvey Oswald

Finish reading

 

Over 57 million Americans live in multi-generational households

Multi-generational living is here to stay in a low wage economy

Posted by mybudget360
22 November 2014

The Great Recession might be officially over on paper, but the social impact continues to be felt today. The structural changes are deep and profound and have caused a major rise in multi-generational households. Many young Americans burdened by low wage jobs and college debt may have no other option but to move back home with parents. The number of people living in such households has doubled since 1980. More than 18 percent of the population now lives in this arrangement. A large push has come from those 25 to 34 given that 1 in 4 now live in a household with multiple generations. Money is tight and rising living expenses including rents have kept many from venturing out on their own. The economy has been adding jobs but many of these jobs are coming from the low wage sector and are simply not providing a base for moving out. This latest election was driven by people unhappy with the economy but also wanting higher wages.
Living at home
Multi-generational living used to be the common way of living in the 1940s and 1950s. The trend was unmistakably moving lower for an entire generation until it hit a bottom in the 1980s. Since that time, it has gradually shifted higher.
The recent Great Recession has accelerated this trend:

living at home
Source: Pew Research
57 million people now live in multi-generational households. Young adults have been the driving force of this trend. Two main factors are pushing this trend:
-1. College debt
-2. Low wage employment
The student debt bubble seems to be in the news every day yet student debt continues to grow:
student-debt
Student debt is now the largest non-housing debt in the economy. This hinders young adults from moving out on their own and forming new households. You also have low wage jobs dominating the employment sector so young adults simply do not have the income coming in to support a new household. 

Ironically the big banking bailouts supported a feverish hunger for investment properties from large investors crowding out many future households. This made buying a single family home much more expensive but also drove the cost of rents higher:

rents and income
Rents are going up much faster than actual household incomes. 

This is another big reason why many young adults are unable to venture out on their own and start new households. 

Household formation is a key driver in our economy. Many new households drive spending in large goods like refrigerators, furniture, and electronics. Instead one fridge, you now have two when a young adult ventures out to form their own household. The current trend is reversing this so we should see this seep into consumer spending.
The raw numbers of multi-generational households are large:

living in multi-generation home
The numbers have doubled since 1980 with the trend accelerating since the Great Recession hit. There doesn’t seem to be any reversing of this trend in the short-term but what this does highlight is an economy that is especially hard on young adults.

Source

Neocons Still Run the GOP - What’s a Neoconservative?

Posted by Charleston Voice, Sat. 21 Jan. 2012


Before or after watching this 6 min. video clip, see our schematic of the Socialist History in America. Note the neo-conservative cadre (see R/H margin) with us today was spawned by the Far Left. Learn to recognize them in the Republican Party. Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum are ALL neocons, internationalists, and subversive of our American heritage. Their masters are the CFR and corporate cabalists.

It is my educated estimate that the neocon influence in the GOP became apparent in the Eisenhower Administration. Eisenhower was a favorite of Eleanor Roosevelt. (more below) This association lends weight to Gingrich's admiration of FDR.





Eleanor Roosevelt and Eisenhower in Hyde Park, New York (August 10, 1945)


To see how far along a dastardly path we have crawled, it is important to remember that Eisenhower called himself "a militant liberal." Together with Eleanor Roosevelt and her friend Esther Lape, Eisenhower fought for a single-payer health system to cover all Americans. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage, extended the excess-profits tax, expanded the public-housing program and warned the nation of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, which he originally called the Congressional-industrial-military complex.Eisenhower graduated from West Point #61 of a class of 164 (Robert E. Lee graduated 2nd in his class at WP). In his presidential campaign Eisenhower used Sen. Joseph McCarthy because of his enormous popularity with the American people!

Read this fascinating story: Did Eisenhower Loot the Nazi Gold & Treasures for his Bankster Handlers?

Suggested reading: The Politician by Robert Welch

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS


November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A torrent of "foiled" terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.

According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS' regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS' alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria - the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be "contained." Of course, this "containment" will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change - serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.


Image: A growing chorus among US policymakers and the Western media are claiming that ISIS poses a minimal threat even amid simaltaneous efforts to ratchet up public hysteria. The West also claims it is no longer necessary to "defeat" ISIS and it should instead be "contained" - inside nations targeted for regime change by the US, allowed to continue fighting America's enemies by proxy ... or in other words, ISIS should continue serving as the West's private mercenary army. 


More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings "Federal Executive Fellow" Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, "The Big Questions on ISIS." After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual - without qualification he claims:

There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.
It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement - explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria - both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West.

ISIS is a Lesser Threat - But a Lesser Threat to Whom? 

As bizarre as Hein's analysis may seem, it strikes at a troubling but undeniable truth. If by "US" Hein meant the American people, America's service members, and victims of various staged attacks aimed at justifying foreign wars, then ISIS is a threat. For the many millions living in the Middle East or North Africa, ISIS is undoubtedly a threat. For corporate-financiers on Wall Street, the many corrupt politicians in Wall Street's pocket in Washington, or corporate-financier funded policymakers like Hein himself, ISIS is not only not a threat, but an indispensable asset.

As such, prioritizing ISIS' destruction is not part of Wall Street or Washington's agenda - rather - perpetuating this threat for as long as possible is. Hein is unabashed about this notion, claiming:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.
Hein's strategy also works exceedingly well if ISIS was intentionally created as a proxy mercenary force, deployed by the West against its enemies. Such a notion, while dismissed out of hand by many as a "conspiracy theory" is not only plausible, but in fact a documented fact. The use of terrorists and sectarian extremists is a reoccurring feature in Western foreign policy - including its most notorious use in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980's where the US created Al Qaeda to begin with. As recently as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh documented a conspiracy to once again use sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to target, undermine, and overthrow the government of Syria and wage a proxy war against Iran.

His report titled, "The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" stated (emphasis added): 

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda
It would be difficult to read Hersh's 2007 report and attempt to deny that is not precisely what has unfolded, verbatim, beginning under the cover of the US-engineered "Arab Spring" up to and including the creation of "ISIS" and its growing fighting capabilities possible only through an immense, coordinated multinational effort.

The creation of ISIS and what appears to be concerted attempts to justify the slow burn prescribed to "stop it" are echoed in Hein's proposal of "not stopping ISIS to stop it."

Why Syria and Iran are Bigger "Threats" 

Ironically, it was an extensive policy paper produced by the very think tank Hein belongs to - Brookings Institution - that noted Iran (and therefore Syria) not only did not want war with the West, but was willing to weather endless covert provocations to avoid giving the West an excuse to wage hegemonic war against the nations. Within the pages of Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?" report published in 2009, it was stated:

With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.  
Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.
The report would also state:
...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)  
The entire report is a documented conspiracy to justify and provoke war with a nation actively seeking to avoid war even at the cost of suffering innumerable humiliations, covert attacks, assassinations, decades-spanning sanctions, and other forms of terroristic provocations.  When Hein and other US policymakers refer to Iran and Syria as a "greater threat" than ISIS, they do not mean a threat to the national security of the American people or the territory of the United States itself - but rather a threat to their own hegemonic interests well beyond America's borders and even interests that lie within the borders of Iran and Syria themselves.

Deciphering the deceptive, criminal language used by US policymakers illuminates the ongoing conspiracy in which ISIS plays a central part. ISIS is considered not a threat - not because the US can manage what they claim is an inherently "anti-Western" terrorist organization - but rather because the US itself created and controls it. Syria and Iran, while not actual threats to the West, are considered instead "threats" to US interests - more specifically - the interests of the corporate-financier elite on Wall Street and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

source: landdestroyer

Friday, November 21, 2014

How The U.S. And Israel Support Al-Qaeda in South Syria

Sanafi al Nasr, a senior al Qaeda strategist, is a part of the so-called “Khorasan group.” Nasr is sitting on the far left in

the picture above. (Source)

November 21, 2014

When the Obama administration said it bombed the "Khorasan group" in north Syria experts wondered what that meant. There was and is no such group. What the Obama administration called Khorasan group were leadership people of Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syria branch of al-Qaeda, which years ago had been active in Afghanistan and Pakistan before coming to Syria. So why make a distinction between Jabhat al-Nusra active all over Syria and a leadership group of Jabhat al-Nusra situated in north Syria?

My hunch is that there is active cooperation between Jabhat al-Nusra and the U.S. especially in south Syria and the distinction was made to keep some form of alliance in the south alive. The mercenaries of the Fee Syrian Army in south Syria have been trained and armed by the CIA in Jordan and are controlled through a multinational operations room somewhere in Amman.

In the south Nusra is actively fighting on the side of the Free Syrian Army which is also getting support from Israel. During the last months the FSA, with al-Nusra fighters as storm troopers in the lead, captured large parts along the Jordanian and Israeli border with Syria. There aim is, as we reported two month ago, to open a corridor towards Damascus. There progress against the Syrian army in the border area was made with the help of supporting Israeli artillery fire.

Reuters confirms today that Nusra, as we wrote, is leading the fighting in the south:

Fighters from Al-Qaida's Nusra Front and other insurgents attacked and briefly entered Baath City in southern Syria on Thursday, the army's last major bastion in a province flanking the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
...
Hundreds of Nusra fighters who fled from the eastern Deir al-Zor province after being driven out by Islamic State earlier this year have regrouped in southern Syria, boosting the rebel presence there, activists say.

"It gave the fighters in the area the upper hand," said Abu Yahya al-Anari, a fighter from Ahrar al-Sham.
...
Insurgent gains since earlier this year have been mainly achieved by Nusra Front together with other Islamist brigades and rebels fighting under the umbrella of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army. Unlike rebel in-fighting further north, they have coordinated well so far.

In the north Jabhat al-Nusra fought mercenary groups supported by the U.S. and Turkey. In the south it cooperates well with such groups supported, equipped and trained by the U.S. from Jordan and by Israel. Al-Nusra in the north was renamed "Khorasan group" so it could be bombed without endangering the Fee Syrian Army alliance with al-Nusra in the south.

The Nusra fighters in the south will of course use the weapons and other equipment the Fee Syrian Army groups receive from the CIA and other secret services. These groups are fighting together and are naturally sharing their resources.

In October, a month after I reported about the operations in the south, the Washington Institute, part of the Israel Lobby in the U.S., acknowledged those plans and pushed for more U.S. and Israeli support at the southern front. It did of course falsely minimize the participation of Nusra.

Coordinated Israeli, Jordanian, and allied assistance in the south could boost the moderate Syrian rebels there, stave off an extremist takeover, and facilitate the ongoing international campaign against ISIS.

So far, most Israeli support for moderate, local, non-Islamist rebel battalions along the border has been limited to humanitarian aid, such as treating 1,400 sick and wounded Syrians in Israeli hospitals, supplying medication, food, and heaters to villagers, and so forth. Some rebel groups maintain constant contact with the IDF, including frequent secret meetings reportedly held in Tiberias, but only a modest amount of weapons have been provided to them, mainly rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

The operation in the south has nothing to do with ISIS which has so far little presence in the south but is solely directed against the Syrian army, the government of Syria and the people of Damascus. The fighting is led, as Reuters today acknowledged, by Jabhat al-Nusra fighters and U.S. and Israel support is given to local Fee Syrian Army groups strongly aligned with al-Nusra.

The U.S. and Israel will certainly have know what Reuters reports today and what we claimed earlier. They have been and are actively and knowingly arming groups who strongly cooperate and share their resources, received from the U.S. and Israel, with al-Qaeda.

Posted by b on November 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM | Permalink