Having 250 human spies on the ground in Iraq is better than spy drones taking pictures:
President Barack Obama is sending 275 U.S. military personnel to Iraq to help provide security to the embassy in Baghdad and U.S. personnel."This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat," Obama said in a letter to lawmakers. "This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed."
...The U.S. also is considering working with Iran. But the Pentagon says it has no plans to enter into military cooperation with the Iranians in any action in Iraq. - See more at: http://www.iraqnews.net/index.php/sid/222959563/scat/c31d0aaa23b24a75/ht/Obama-Tells-Congress-US-Deploying-Up-to-275-Troops-to-Iraq#sthash.nwgdlQV8.dpuf
Obama, that is, is considering a partnership with Iran in this, but the military, for which there has been evidence of hawks wishing to invade Iran, says, no way. And, as is typical of the O-mericans, they want something from Iraq before helping them out, never mind if people die in the meantime. What does Obama want? The made-for-public line is not likely the fullest reality: "U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says this is not just a military challenge for Iraq's government. She says Iraqi leaders must make a sincere effort to govern in a non-sectarian manner and listen to the legitimate grievances of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities. The only grievances of the Kurds that I can think of is their desire to have more oil profits and a quasi-state of their own that includes Mosul.
http://www.iraqnews.net/index.php/sid/222959563/scat/c31d0aaa23b24a75/ht/Obama-Tells-Congress-US-Deploying-Up-to-275-Troops-to-Iraq#sthash.nwgdlQV8.dpuf" Obama is in no rush to quell the Sunni advance. But the military brass has a mind of its own, controlled to a degree by non-military people that some would call a shadow government.The day after the Iraq government claimed to have retaken a few towns (may or may not be true):
Al Qaeda-inspired militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) captured the city of Tal Afar, near the Syrian border, as the Sunni militants and allied rebels advanced towards the Iraqi capital Baghdad on [June 17]. ...The capture of Tal Afar, a strategic city along the highway to Syria, takes the ISIS militants closer to their goal of linking areas under their control on both sides of the border.Does this benefit the Western agenda? Yes. In the last update, there was an article speaking on two highways between Syria and Iraq, one of which was controlled at a key spot by Kurds. I assume, therefore, that the one above is the one not controlled by the Kurds. These highways are important for the traffic of war baggage from one nation to the other. It means the war is escalating.
If you're having a hard time trying to figure the reason for all the talk on whether the U.S. will partner with Iran for the Iraqi operation, you're right to be asking why all the fuss. Who cares about Iran? Why can't the U.S. help Iraq with or without Iran? People are dying. The fact is, Iran wants to U.S. to respect it, and Obama is facilitating that desire for respect. The article above puts that desire this way: "The commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, is in Iraq holding consultations with officials on how to push back the ISIS militants. The US government was notified in advance of Soleimani's visit. " Hey Obama, we're here already. Don't think you can ignore us, because Iraq likes us better than you.
Maliki, frustrated with leaders of the demoralized Iraqi military, reportedly has turned to a top Iranian commander for some advice. Maliki met Monday in Baghdad with the commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani. Kurdish sources say the general is drafting a coordination strategy for the Iraqi military....Maliki blamed Saudi Arabia for much of the uprising..."We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that -- which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites," the Iraqi government said in a statement.
Oops, Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally. Although Maliki won't admit it publicly, I don't think he likes the United States. Maliki will gladly take American air power to solve this crisis. By worldly standards, ISIS needs to be stopped by any means, no time for debating. This week, Maliki asked the United States for air power, after a large oil refinery was attacked. Why hasn't air power been given yet? What is there to debate? Well, for one thing, nobody trusts the military under Obama. Air power in Afghanistan hasn't made the Afghans happy. Like a giant octopus versus a small crab, the Bush military had years to defeat the Sunni activists, but failed. Another U.S. military disaster in Iraq now would only broaden the smile on Iran's face.
What's the O-remedy? Negotiations between Maliki and the Sunni. Maliki must give to the Sunni what they want, and thus end the hostilities. But that's like feeding terrorism. It's Obama's proposed solution that the Sunni monster should be fed, empowered, and even pampered.
Consider the article below, written in Washington. Do not take only the black and white as truth, but consider an alternative scenario where the current leader of ISIS was released from prison agreeing to act for the CIA. If that's the case, then view the claim, on how ISIS got its money, as possibly bogus by design, and then note the Pollack surname making comments:
...When [ISIS's] current leader, Iraqi-born Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was released from a U.S. prison in 2008, he reconstituted the I-S-I, the group of al-Zarqawi...Loretta Napoleoni..."The same people who sponsored al-Zarqawi were sponsoring him to fight the Assad regime, because they wanted a regime change in Syria. But in reality what he did was use this money as a source of seed money to start his own independent financial construction to bankroll his return to Iraq."
Napoleoni says the sponsors, whom she identified as individuals from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, were essentially "used" by Baghdadi, who spent his time in Syria to consolidate his group and build capital by smuggling and seizing strategic areas, particularly oil fields, held by other rebel groups.
"What they have done is sell oil or sell back some of the oil fields to the regime of Assad [sounds very difficult, perhaps false], and in exchange they got quite a lot of money. So with these funds they have accumulated in four years of civil war in Syria then they were able to move back to Iraq and launch their attack on the Sunni areas of Iraq. They have managed to construct their own economy, so they are totally independent, " said Napoleoni.
...Ken Pollack, a national security expert with the Brookings Institution, explains.
"While they're an offshoot of al-Qaida, they have broken with al-Qaida and we have some pretty good reporting that they have fought with the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq as well. The al-Qaida affiliate still takes orders from Ayman al-Zawahiri and the al-Qaida leadership in Pakistan. ISIL doesn't; it does its own thing. But it shares the same very virulent form of Islamist ideology, it is absolutely determined to fight the Shia, and of course Iraq is dominated by a Shia government," said Pollack.
Following ISIL's takeover of Mosul and looting of the central bank, the group's estimated holdings are between $500-million and $1 billion.
The militants also are estimated to have thousands of fighters, many of them Westerners who believe in the vision of a borderless caliphate. Baghdad hopes the militants can be stopped before it comes to that.
I don't see how a group can attack a bank and get much money from it. The report was that ISIS got 400 million from it. The bank obviously didn't have that much cash or gold sitting in the building. Can a group attack a bank and use the money-wiring process to send 400 million from certain accounts to their own accounts? I find that difficult / impossible because there would be means in place to see where the "money" (actually, it's just electrons in the electric wires) went to, and the transactions could be canceled as a result.
General Petraeus, in his comments on Iraq, has said that the ISIS army has "looted banks" (plural), but perhaps he knows nothing, and is merely repeating what he has read. I've noted that there are no details in the news claim telling how the money was taken from the central bank. If the claim is a lie, who's lying, and why?
As you can read, ISIS is able to act independent of al-Qaeda, something we would expect if it was a CIA operation from the top. I'm using "CIA" loosely, because Baghdadi may be a branch of the military or certain invisibles. I expect the Bush goons to be behind it.
The commentary below tells that the O-Democrats refused to send Egypt certain aircraft immediately after Sisi removed Morsi from power. These aircraft were slated to fight pro-Morsi, anti-Israeli fighters in the Sinai. If Obama was supporting that pro-Morsi movement, it can explain why the aircraft were not sent:
...Enter Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont): Upset with Morsi's fate, Leahy put a hold on $650 million in security assistance to Egypt, although he has now approved $572 million. What he continues to put his foot down upon is the transfer of the Apaches, currently warehoused in Fort Hood. The longer the Apaches sit in Texas, the more potent the threat in the Sinai becomes. If there's one lesson the administration and Congress should have learned, it is that allowing al-Qaeda affiliates to sink roots in any territory spreads instability.It would be wrong for Obama to simply blame Leahy for the failure of the United States to uphold its commitments. The White House actually has various tools at its disposal to legally maneuver around Leahy's hold...
...It does not seem, however, that Leahy is intractable. The administration has yet to actually fight Leahy. Given the chaos in Iraq and Syria, the necessity for Egypt to protect itself against terrorists based in the Sinai is clear. Unfortunately, once again, it seems the White House is letting the ball drop.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/16/obama-drops-the-ball-in-egypt/
But this week, ka-pow:
U.S. aid to Egypt would be cut by $400 million under a Senate foreign aid bill [partly overseen by Patrick Leahy]......the proposed cut amounts to a 26 percent reduction when compared with current funding.
Indeed, the action inside the Senate Appropriations Committee came hours after Egypt's new president, former military commander Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, swore in his cabinet in Cairo on Tuesday.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/senate-chops-aid-to-egypt-107965.html
Hmm, the Senate is wishing and acting to cut 400 million. Where else have we read that figure? It could appear that Obama is taking that much from Egypt in order to replenish what he gave to ISIS. In this sense, Egypt is paying for the invasion on Maliki. It may even be that ISIS will ultimately be used as a American club to bash Egypt in fulfillment of Daniel prophecy.
I have not read much expressing the details of how the southern battle toward Baghdad is going. But there is this: "Scores of Iraqis were killed on [June 17] during a battle for the provincial capital of Baquba, Reuters reported. Fighting shut the main oil refinery, starving parts of the country of fuel and power... I've read that they succeeded in taking much of the refinery, but not all. I've read that the Iraqi military has control over part of it. How on earth can a single refinery be a battleground all its own? Is the Iraqi military a mere gang of boys? It seems incredible to me that Iraq hasn't got the manpower to protect such a thing from a group reportedly having a mere 10,000 fighters...spread thinner into all the areas "conquered" so far. I read that the attackers on the oil refinery numbered merely in the hundreds. But if this group has a super Intelligence system, like that of the CIA, then its quick surge and confidence can be explained.
Russia stopped gas delivery to the Ukraine. Gas deliveries from the Middle East to Europe can hinge on the Ukrainian situation. The latest unpredictability in the Ukraine comes near to Russia's South Stream line (now under construction off the Ukrainian coast) in more ways than one:
NEW YORK, JUNE 17 (RIA Novosti) -- The Ukraine crisis and subsequent fears over Russian gas exports disruptions highlight the EU need for a better energy strategy, a US trade diplomat told RIA Novosti in an interview....The uninterrupted flow of Russian gas to Europe has recently been put into question by the political crisis in Ukraine and its ballooning gas debt to Russia. Kiev's gas debt to Russia has been building up since 2013 as the country found itself amid deep political crisis and continues to accumulate at a rate of $1 billion per month.
...On [June 17], Russian gas giant Gazprom switched to advance payment scheme for gas deliveries because of Ukraine's debt and blackmail during the negotiations. Ukraine's Prime Minister Yatsenyuk had earlier instructed the government and Naftogaz to prepare for cuts of Russian gas deliveries.
Putin could be using this natural-gas war to punish the new Ukrainian leadership, or to deliberately foment a war situation. In the meantime, Putin has some Europeans worried about future gas prices. Yet, for all this, I have not found one article in RIA Novosti or the Moscow Times concerning the Iraq situation, which has the potential to affect fuel issues. The story above underscores why the West needs a strong presence In Iraq near the Kurds.
With a civil war looming in the Ukraine, and Putin enjoying a popularity rating of 80 percent, it's a bad time for the Ukraine to be saying this:
KIEV, June 19 (RIA Novosti) - The creation of a single operator for Ukraine's gas transport system, with investors from the US and EU, could render construction of the South Stream pipeline unnecessary, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said [June 19]."This will give us the possibility to have new conditions for transporting Russian natural gas. This will give us the ability to halt the construction of South Stream and direct all volumes that were planned for the South Stream through Ukraine because, first and foremost, this will be in the interests of EU member states," Yatsenyuk said during a Ukrainian parliamentary session.
Ukraine"s prime minister presented a draft law to the country's parliament that would allow the government to create a gas transit network operator, with 49 percent owned by US and EU investors. The draft law provides the operator with management and/or concession or rent rights for the major pipelines and underground storage units.
Now we see what's really going on. With a pro-West president voted in the Ukraine recently, the idea is to sabotage Russia's South Stream pipeline. This truly does have the makings of a full-blown civil war because Putin is sure to fund the Russian side if he sees the oil sales slipping away to pro-Westerners. Controlling the oil shipping in Kurdistan could become important to Russia if the West finds success...which may be soon. On the same day that the article above came out, and in the same media, there's the headline, "Russia to Fulfill All Military Contract Obligations with Iraq":
Russia and Iraq signed a package deal on military technical cooperation in 2012, worth $4.3 billion. The deal included the export modification of Russia's night-time strike helicopter Mi-28N, dubbed "Night Hunter" and Mi-35 attack helicopters, a total of 40 aircraft. In November 2013 Iraq received the first batch of Mi-35 and in January 2014 - Mi-28N.In the light of sanctions against Russia several NATO politicians criticized France for fulfilling the contract with Russia on Mistral warships, requesting to stop military cooperation with Moscow. Later Russian President Vladimir Putin met with French President Francois Hollande to discuss the prospects of bilateral relations. There were no public announcements after the meeting.
There had been doubt as to whether that deal went ahead. But why is Russia mentioning this now? On the same day, the same media has a headline, "Russian Army Ready for Any Developments in Ukraine, World" On the same day, from the same media, a lament from a Russian official on the Iraqi situation, and an accusation against the West:
Iraq has essentially split into three parts dominated by Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said Thursday...."Iraq had already been targeted with mortar attacks followed by Hussein's execution. And there were plenty of other examples: Yugoslavia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and now Ukraine -- these are all links in a chain. The Americans continue to find "legal pretext" for violence against sovereign states. First they eliminate the head of state and then enforce so-called 'democracy'" Patrushev explained.
That is no small accusation, and it's the truth. But the airing of this statement sounds like it's meant to justify Russian aggression in the Ukraine, as aggression against an American bully storming its regional turf. The cost to Russia in such aggression would be isolation. At this time, the Ukrainian side is on the offense against the Russian side, allowing Russia to claim the sort of aggression that brings it to involvement again. Russia retreated recently probably wanting to think things over on whether it wanted to be isolated further from the West, and because it didn't want to appear as an unjustified intruder. But the new Ukrainian president, Poroshenko, is prepared to sign an "association agreement" with the EU.
To underscore the Western poke in Putin's eye:"The Bulgarian government last week bowed to the inevitable, accepting the demands of the European Commission to suspend construction of their parts of Gazprom's South Stream pipeline designed to bypass Ukraine and bring Russian gas to Europe via a new southern corridor." "Suspend" construction does not mean forever, but refers to a certain legal technicality that Putin thinks can be overcome. The point is, we can clearly see Europe seeking to sabotage a pipeline. Is that not contradictory to democracy and fair play in business? Of course. Imagine the full force of Europe coming against your business just because it doesn't like you. "The EU is deploying other instruments as well: it has frozen an exemption granting Gazprom full access to the OPAL pipeline running through Germany..."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/eu-plays-hardball-with-russia-on-gas-issue/502214.htmlIt adds: "If built, South Stream's capacity of 63 billion cubic meters per year will reduce Russia's gas transit dependency on Ukraine to zero by 2020. Russia currently exports around 50 precent of its gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine..." Russia's dream of fueling Europe unfettered is at stake, but what this situation could modify to is Russian hatred for Europe that fulfills Revelation 17, wherein the anti-Christ burns Europe with military fire.
Russia's Chechnya ally apparently has a large presence in ISIS: "A final note about ISIS: Many of its fighters are actually Iraqi. While about a third are foreign, including a large Chechen contingent of about 1,000 and maybe 500 from the West..." The article says nothing more on Chechens, but I wanted to point this out because the Chechen president is a Muslim convert as well as being pro-Putin.
https://news.vice.com/article/heres-who-is-fighting-in-iraq-and-whyBy June 20th, there were at least three news statements from the West beginning to suggest that Maliki must go. Certainly, he looks like a failure, and can be easily portrayed as one. John Kerry has come out to say, "'This is not about al-Maliki...Let me stress, what the United States is doing is about Iraq. And nothing that the president decides to do is going to be focused specifically on Prime Minister al-Maliki.'" Look at the choice of words, what sounds like Obama's putting off of Maliki. The next sentence reads, "There is a growing chorus of calls in Washington for Maliki to step down and pave the way for reconciliation among the country's dividing sects, though the White House has not publicly endorsed the idea." But Mr. Kerry, what will the next prime minister look and rule like? I wonder if you or your peers have someone else in mind to replace him, someone more pro-American. Is this what this latest twist to the story is all about?
http://www.iraqnews.net/index.php/sid/223066885/scat/c31d0aaa23b24a75/ht/Kerry-says-US-intervention-not-about-helping-Iraqi-PMPetraeus echoed the same theme, that the United States should not look like it wants to be the Shi'ite air force. But is that just the excuse concocted by the O-circle to keep from lending U.S. air power to Maliki? Apparently. Petraeus sounds like he favors the Sunni over Maliki. He's saying that he doesn't want to offend the Sunni by lending the Maliki Shi'ites the air power. It's a very lame excuse, but the O-dministration is saying far more, that Obama doesn't want to appear as though he's supporting a blundering Maliki. This is the O-response a day or two after Maliki formally asked Obama for air power. It's such a bad excuse that it causes me to re-assert that the American military and/or the CIA and/or the invisible globe trodders are behind ISIS.
The article above verifies that the 250-300 Americans sent into Iraq are for the purpose of spying: "The Pentagon has planned to send Special Forces to Iraq, with focus on intelligence gathering, according to a CNN report" But what are they spying out? Maliki is the fool to trust the O-mericans. I see the potential for a blunder that puts Iraq deeper into turmoil to the point that the Iraqi throne will be up for grabs. Already the Russians and Iranians can see what the O-mericans are up to in seeking a more West-favorable Iraqi leader.
Then, the unbelievable: "UK Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament in London that ISIS was also plotting terror attacks on Britain" As if ISIS doesn't have hands full in Iraq, the British Prime minister wishes for his people to believe that ISIS has expended efforts inside Britain, efforts that can do nothing good for the Iraq battle, but can increase the likelihood of swifter U.S. air operations. There have been other reasons to believe that Cameron is on-board with faked terror acts inside Britain for to justify globe trodding. This fear of inside terror acts is continually fed to the citizens in case the faked / staged events are needed. Australia has been crying the blues this week over terrorists coming back from ISIS to Australia, and yet the war in Iraq has only begun (i.e. it's not the natural time to lament such a thing).
Another article saying nothing much: "For now, the U.S. seems content to fly an increasing number of manned surveillance planes and drones over Iraq." Consider what may be happening: 1) the US causes internal strife in Iraq, a war against Maliki; 2) the U.S. blames the strife on Maliki, and says he's got to go due to being non-inclusive / non-democratic. Where have we heard that before?
If this war drags on, there is the possibility that Assad will support Maliki because ISIS, if it should gain money and power in Iraq, could come back against Assad with a vengeance. Prophetically, this makes sense. With Assad helping Maliki out, and with the U.S. now publicly slamming Maliki, Putin has chance and opportunity to help Maliki out too, at least with lip service. If this happens, it would be prophetically "exciting."
What sort of person can become ruler in Iraq, as well as ruler over the EU while hating and later destroying the EU? It causes me to think that prophecy is to be fulfilled much later than sooner, after something in the world allows the building blocks for that scenario. I've tried to imagine a Russian president acting as the EU High Representative, but it requires very solid relations between the two parties, which do not exist at this time. I've imagined that a Russian agent inside Iraq could jolt the West so hard that it would begin to make amends with Russia, like rolling out the red carpet...to a lead role in the EU if that could pacify the anti-Christ in Iraq. Otherwise, I have no solution.
For a Russian rant against the United States, where the Ukraine's new government is accused of "nazis," see the opinion below that might mirror how Putin views things:
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140616/190571738/Attack-on-Russian-Embassy-in-Kiev-a-provocation-to-war.htmlBy the end of the Iraqi week, the chief Shi'ite religious leader of Iraq was calling for a new Iraqi government, though I'm not sure whether he's gunning to have Maliki replaced. In any case, the decision of the Shi'ite leader amounts partly to a rewarding of the ISIS terrorists, and partly to a white flag raised to Sunni tribes that do not fall under the terrorist umbrella. The question is, which particular Sunni are going to have the next roles in the next Iraqi government? What will they do or plot when they have those roles? The O-mites have yet to solve this problem as they insist on a more-inclusive government. How can Maliki allow the Sunni within his government to operate freely when many of those Sunni are there to topple the Shi'ite side of government? We just saw an O-blunder in Egypt due to the all-inclusiveness policy: the Morsi government turned out to be a reciprocal copy of the unflattery spoken by Obama against Mubarak.
The underlying O-solution, which he may not yet be admitting, is to allow the Kurds and the Sunni to have their own autonomous provinces within Iraq, an idea held / promoted (in the past, anyway) by Joe Biden. Obama continues to make Biden the overseer of the Iraqi dilemma, and it looks like Joe's about to get the opportunity to solve the problem (he'd get his wish best if he's the next U.S. president). This problem-solving could take years, allowing the O-worm to find a new root in Iraq. Never mind Obama's current garbage when he tries to give the impression that he doesn't want to be back in Iraq.
Back in 2007, the U.S. Senate passed, with much Republican support, Biden's bill agreeing to see Iraq carved into distinct chunks. Or, at least, to regionally separate the sects sufficient to keep the peace. The point is, the Democrat senators all agreed to that idea seven years ago, which is to say that the Democrats now are expected to foster the Biden scheme. Shouldn't we assume that when Obama says he wants the Sunni and Kurds to be included in Iraqi politics that what he really wants is autonomy for them both? It's exactly what the Maliki side does NOT want.
Back in the 2010 Iraqi election, Maliki was defeated by Ayad Alawi, a Shi'ite running in a Sunni bloc (Iraqiya List), a man with ties to Britain. But Maliki was able to take the case to a favorable court to have Alawi robbed of the presidency. Peace in Iraq is important to foreign companies there, and so the power-sharing concept, as epitomized by Alawi, may have been what the West was wanting to see in the presidency. Four years have been wasted toward that effort by Maliki, but to assume that a prime minister Alawi would have solved the problem is, well, an assumption. In any case, the Western "coalition" has seemingly decided that a new situation needs to be hastened in Iraq.
By removing national regulations, this coalition has the task of simplifying / streamlining entry of Western companies for to do business in foreign markets. Here's from a June-20 WikiLeaks story:
The pro-transparency group WikiLeaks has released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement, TISA, a trade agreement covering 50 countries and more than 68 percent of world trade in service. Until now, the draft has been classified to keep it clandestine, not only during the negotiations, but also for five years post-enactment. According to the leaked text, TISA aims to cement the extreme deregulatory model of the 1990s by forbidding countries from improving financial regulation. The draft Financial Services Annex would also establish rules favorable to the expansion of financial multinationals into other nations by preventing regulatory obstacles. The draft text comes from the April 2014 negotiation round. We discuss the leaked text with Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch and author of "The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority."...LORI WALLACH: Well, we've known these negotiations have been ongoing, but no one knew exactly what they were up to until this leaked. And effectively, the text, if it were enacted, would roll back a lot of the re-regulation that followed the global financial crisis and basically handcuff us into the 1990s extreme deregulation model that we all recognize was the cause of the crisis. And the perverse nature of it is, of course, because of the extreme secrecy, you have the Obama administration in public working to "re-regulate" the Dodd-Frank bill and its regulations, but then, behind closed doors in these negotiations in Geneva, sort of on the sidelines of the World Trade Organization [WTO], the U.S. and the European Union -- the leaked text shows, because there are brackets that say who has what proposal -- are pushing amongst the most retrograde anti-regulation provisions.
...At the World Trade Organization -- everyone will remember the Doha round of negotiations. This is basically what happened after the big Seattle protest. There was going to be no WTO expansion, and then after 9/11, in Qatar, in Doha, there was a launch of something very similar to what all the countries rejected in Seattle. And that negotiation included major financial deregulation. And a lot of countries said no, and they said no to other parts of that Doha round. And as a result, and with a lot of citizen campaigning and protest around the world for over 10 years, the WTO expansion, the Doha round, never happened.
Well, there was a "COALITION [caps mine] of the willing" countries. They were the neoliberals. And they decided, "Well, if we can't get everyone to do it, why don't we just see if we can go over here on the side and start this financial deregulation agreement, and then maybe later we'll drag everyone else into it?" So this is a subset, this TISA. And basically, this is the Chamber's agenda. This is tearing down all of these regulations. And they think, of course, it's going to be very profitable for them to operate, basically ripping off all of us consumers.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/20/a_plan_only_banksters_will_love
It's the O-thing to do legislation secretly, and to attempt a keeping of the secrets even after laws are passed. It's not much different than a parasite eating your leg while you sleep. The global war on terror is just this same "coalition" to spread financial tentacles as deep into Russia's backyard as possible, all of it having the price-fixing concept that comes with monopolization. Typically, only the biggest players get to be international, and the biggest players swallow the smaller ones whole back home until nothing's left but the price fixing between a few big ones. "Suggested retail price" is nothing but price fixing, especially when the suggestions are done secretly between companies. What we're seeing at the gas pumps is meant to go to all other necessities of earthly life until Western workers are reduced to slavery for the elite.
The page above surprised me with this headline: "Report: U.S. Conditions Iraq Military Intervention on Maliki Resignation"
The Obama administration has reportedly conditioned military intervention in Iraq on the resignation of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday Maliki's government has asked the Obama administration to launch airstrikes on Sunni militants. General Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed Iraq's request in Senate testimony....According to a report in The Independent of London, the Obama administration has told senior Iraqi officials that it would intervene militarily only if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki left office...Meanwhile in Washington, President Obama hosted top lawmakers to discuss whether he would need congressional approval for any military strikes in Iraq.
So, there we have it: it's another coup sponsored by the O-circle. Doctor Obama is telling Iraq that the spread of ISIS is not going to be injected with anti-bacterial killers until Maliki steps down. This is not unlike giving booster shots to the Sunni...for to fight on.
If Maliki doesn't step down, the O-mericans will blame the bloodshed on him. That is the power behind causing the bloodshed in the first place. It's a very diabolical but convenient method of fomenting a coup. Under Obama's rules, all that the Republicans need to do to get him out of power is to kill a few hundred Democrats with a make-shift army, and the blame can then go to Obama for making the Republicans unhappy. If this is the new way forward, it will be as easy, for taking down any leader, as giving his political enemies the green light to rise up against him. If that leader can be accused of causing the uprising simply because he opposes his enemies, then the world has allowed itself to be guided by an asinine principal.
Just watch and count the stooges in the world who will now follow Obama's solution for Iraq. Maliki can justifiably argue that it's Obama who doesn't care for the lives lost because he's dangling his air-strike potential to win his long-term globalist will rather than to save lives in the heat of the moment. Plus, who does Obama think he is dictating to countries who it is that should or shouldn't rule? Maliki cared enough to ask Obama's help, but Obama doesn't care to save lives; he wants a changed government. It's very obvious that Obama is seeking the best-sounding methods to avoid air strikes. Why???
I can't provide sheer evidence that Baghdadi is an American agent. But the situation as it has panned out in the first two weeks from the Mosul invasion allows for that theory. It is a theory only, but nothing in the news has convinced me, thus far, that it cannot be true. To the contrary, it is now logical to view ISIS as the new monster used by the West to give traction toward the Maliki coup. There's also the story: "As many as 500 British citizens may be fighting in conflicts in the Middle East, according to authorities in the United Kingdom who are currently investigating home grown..." Anyone of these could be spies for the British to monitor the situations in various Muslim hot spots. Baghdadi was released from an American prison in 2008, in Bush's last year and approaching Obama's term. Obama then did away with Osama, we are to believe, and after that the al-Qaeda monster, appearing now and then in Western news, withered away...but, we are to believe, it morphed into ISIS.
It may even be that the gross stories of brutal murders conducted by ISIS are faked. If so, expect false witnesses to speak to news people, just like they do in faked events back in the United States. The reality may be this: when the West was rendered incapable of overthrowing Assad, they fast-tracked (i.e. poured much money) into the overthrow of Maliki with the goal of securing many more Sunni fighters, and more money, for the come-back against Assad. If the West also supplies the anti-Christ, then one can begin to understand that the False Prophet can be a Westerner too. That fire from the sky that we read (Revelation 13) concerning the False Prophet may just be elemental to the U.S. / NATO air power we are reading about in this week's news.
At last week's end, the 300 U.S. advisors were not permitted to spread out into Iraq due to legal issues, but the truth may be that Maliki's circle is hesitating because it doesn't trust the O-mericans. Something might not smell just right. I'm reading that Obama has many drones over certain parts of Iraq spying out the ISIS movements, but drones can also carry weapons. Why shouldn't some weapons be used in the meantime, while spying things out? Maliki certainly won't mind. But this lack of air support even has Iran accusing Obama of not being serious in fighting ISIL. Why is that??? When someone says that you'll get air power over your dead political body, it translates to a resounding "no chance." Hence, the hesitation to allow the 300 O-mericans into Iraq may prevail.
Maliki has another method of dealing with the Sunni, which is to arm the Shi'ites on the streets. It's the full-blown civil war that he hopes to avoid. Obama is giving him no choice. It's not Obama, but the Shi'ites themselves, that will force Maliki to step down, if they choose to go that route. The full-blown war may be hastened due to the pressure on Maliki from Obama, and is more assured in this:
Sunni fighters have seized an Iraqi town that borders Syria, allowing the militants to pass freely along with their weapons between the two countries, security officials said [June 21].Fighters with the al-Qaida breakaway group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), took the border town of Qaim overnight after a day of heavy fighting on [June 20]...
Insurgents also took control Saturday of Rawah. The fall of Qaim and Rawah solidifies the rebel control of the western Anbar province.
The border breach could result in yet more fighters and weaponry flooding into Iraq, as the militants expand their battlefields...
...On [June 21], fighters loyal to al-Sadr [a Shi'ite] mounted a show of strength in a parade featuring missiles and artillery pieces and stretching for several miles through the Sadr City section of Baghdad. Armed men marched past loudspeakers proclaiming how they would defend Iraq from the Sunni militants who are creeping closer to the Iraqi capital.
In Khazna, watching television footage of the march in Baghdad, residents say they will join the fight, but also warn that neither the United States nor even Shi'ite Iran should directly intervene.
That situation did not allow Maliki to exploit it for his own use because he was yet dreamily looking to Obama for his Plan A, but with Obama wiping his snot on Maliki's sleeve, the latter now needs to turn to the al-Sadr method as Plan B. The al-Sadr option may explain why Iran has yet to arm the Shi'ites in the Mosul theater at Maliki's request, lest the Shi'ite volunteers are offended.
The Iranian ayatollah has been given the information, we may assume, from his Iranian Intelligence system, that ISIS is not leading the Sunni thrust in Iraq:
"The United States is trying to portray this as a sectarian war. But what is happening in Iraq is not a war between Shiite and Sunnis," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a statement carried by the state-run IRNA news agency. The Ayatollah instead said that the insurgency is being led by remnants of Saddam Hussein's army, a claim the United States has dismissed out-of-hand.I didn't know until reading this June-22 article that the U.S. rejects the idea that Baathists are leading this war, which may mean that it's true while the U.S. wants to hide the fact. One would think that Iran, of all nations, knows what's going on in Iraq simply because Maliki informs Iran. Therefore, is Obama secretly working with the Baathists? Is ISIS just the over-bloated monster to help cause and justify whatever it is that the West seeks to accomplish?
As per the Benghazi scandal (late 2012 and early 2013), I had accused Obama of sending weapons from Libya, through Turkey (and with Turkey as an accessory), to fighters in Syria. It was logical that some got to ISIS, but the question was whether the O-military had been deliberately arming ISIS, for it was at that very time when ISIS was evolving into the strongest faction fighting against Assad. For years prior to that, it was reported that al-Douri was hiding out in Syria, and we may assume that his fellow Iraqi Baathists had been making plans from there to fight Maliki for as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And here we are, with a situation in which it appears that O-mericans are funding the war against Maliki. It has been reported that the Kurds are very happy with this war because they are in the process of shipping oil through Turkish pipelines, which easily explains why Turkey had cause for routing O-Libyan weapons to the Sunni. One can view this Sunni advance as a two-year (and counting) effort to free the Kurds from Maliki's thumb.
The Mosul invasion a couple of weeks ago was not the start of this Iraqi war; the Sunni had been at it for a few months previous, but had left Mosul alone until then, a mystery I don't understand at this time. The Iraqi forces were containing the battle to a fair degree until the Sunni romped through Mosul and lashed out toward Baghdad, leaving us to solve why the Sunni didn't do it earlier. In my opinion, and others, it was a great amount of money acquired by the Sunni that provided their confidence for striking southward in the face of Baghdad. We have not heard whatsoever the details on where that money came from. Is it really possible to seize oil refineries and pipeline hubs militarily, and to sell the oil / gas on the black market, all while Assad / Maliki are still in power? Is it really possible to seize a bank and take 400 million from it?
I have read a report of some Kurdish oil making its way to Israel. This is where I suspect Rothschild oil people at both ends of the sales. Below is a June-23 article in Israel that the West will not appreciate. I cannot find the story anywhere else:
Kurdish intelligence reported news of a strategic alliance and pact between Islamist groups to topple Mosul and other major Iraqi cities with ISIS's help as far back as January, the Telegraph reported late [June 22].Shortly after the fall of Fallujah to ISIS, an informant reportedly stepped into a Kurdish intelligence office to reveal the news that ISIS officials had networked with remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and former Hussein deputy Izzat al-Douri to plan a large-scale invasion.
But while Kurdish handlers ran immediately to the US and Britain with the information, the West allegedly sat back and did nothing [expected if O-mericans were partnered with Douri].
"We had this information then, and we passed it on to your (British) government and the US government," Rooz Bahjat, a senior lieutenant to Lahur Talabani, head of Kurdish intelligence, told the Telegraph. "We used our official liaisons."
"We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners," he added. "It fell on deaf ears."
He warned that the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was now a greater threat to western countries than Osama bin Laden had been in 2001.
But the West may be responsible for more than just the current waves of ISIS takeovers.
Both Bahjat and Talabani stated that the West's lack of resolve to tie up all the loose ends in the 2003 invasion caused the current crisis on the grand scale - despite a common criticism that the invasion itself caused the crisis.
...ISIS forces continue to descend upon Baghdad as of Monday [June 23] morning, as confused fighting continues in a steady line toward the capital city (see map below).
..."I have completely lost hope in America after listening to President Barack Obama," Talabani said. "I blame him personally for what has happened in Syria, in the Middle East, in Iraq at the moment."
The Kurds belonging to this particular Kurdish-Intelligence group (Kurdistan Regional Government) are apparently not a conniving part of the Sunni invasion, even though the invasion may have the purpose of freeing up Kurd-oil sales. For me, the evidence is now practically complete for to deduce that the Americans are sponsoring the Sunni invasion. "It fell on deaf ears" tends to mean that they were not inquiring for more details. It sounds as though the Americans were troubled by Kurd Intelligence discovering the plot. It even verifies that Baathists under Douri were involved at the leadership level, the very thing that the Americans have reportedly denied. The Jerusalem Post does not have this story (on the same day, anyway, as israelinationalnews.com), not necessarily because there's little chance of truth to it. It doesn't strike me as a false story.
Why would the Kurds oppose the ISIS group if its purpose is to free up Kurd oil sales? For one thing, if the Kurds don't know the O-Sunni game plan, it would appear to them that ISIS is a free-radical Arab group intent on stealing the Mosul area (Kurdish backyard) to themselves. But, the fact may be, that while Baghdadi is a CIA operative, most / the rest of ISIS is the free-radical Arab group striving for Sunni interests all over the map.
If Baghdadi is not an American operative, then the Americans / Zionists are using the Douri faction to enhance Kurd oil sales, with the rewarding promise made to Douri that Americans will support his Sunni causes to a stipulated / agreed-upon degree.
Here's a small bit on the oil situation from a June-22 article: "Iraq's government condemned the country's semi-autonomous Kurdish authorities for 'illegally' selling crude oil to Israel for the fourth time. The SCF Altai tanker carrying crude oil from the Kurdish region docked in Ashkelon, Israel, June 20, according to an e-mailed statement from the Iraqi Oil Ministry."
http://www.aina.org/news/20140622134757.htmISIS in Mosul has threatened the Christians there with death, though I've yet to read of an anti-Christian wave of that sort. I'm also reading that Christians are being taxed more heavily (by ISIS) to urge them simply to move away.
This Lebanese article ends with: "Kurdish militias, who are also trying to expand their autonomous region, have fought for months with ISIL, which has been seeking to seize from their control oil fields in northern and eastern areas." Amazingly, the Kurdish military is able to repel ISIS while Maliki's military cannot. What's wrong with that picture? There must be more to the frustrating of Maliki than merely ISIS. If the Baathists are in agreement to allow the Kurds their autonomy, it can explain why the Kurds are able to prevail thus far (i.e. because they are dealing with ISIS alone). The fight to Baghdad is expected to include the powers of the Baathists.
In the article below, there is cause to believe that the British lied to the Kurdish Intelligence concerning some 400-500 British citizens fighting in Iraq for the Sunni wave. Such a lie would serve the propped-monster scenario that prime minister Cameron is seeking to utilize. It can be surmised that Cameron wants to send fighters to Iraq, as he wanted for Syria. Cameron seemed more passionate for this end than Obama during the recent, staged chemical-weapons attack in Syria. Propping up a monster at home can only be for the purpose of gaining public support for sending British soldiers to war, should it be desired by the leaders. Something in Britain that controls the O-circle seems to be engineering the Iraqi war to the best of its ability.
http://newdaystarts1.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/claim-of-400-isis-brits-in-iraq-rejected/The Telegraph UK has a blog spot with a line: "Latest developments and news from the Iraq crisis, as Saudi Arabia warns that Britain and US must not meddle in Iraq." "Meddle" is not a nice word. It means that, even in the eyes of the pro-West Saudis, the O-Brit duo are seeking to pull the strings the way of their own interests. The article has the title: "Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live" Isn't that the stockpile that a former British prime minister (Blair) claimed to exist but was never found?
For further reading on another topic, here's an interesting interview regarding Sandy Hook:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/sandy-hook-redux-obama-officials-confirm-that-it-was-a-drill-and-no-children-died_062014
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents