As ISIS is an Iraqi organization, why would Tunisians (west side of Libya), by the thousands, be interested in fighting their war? Are Tunisians being paid to fight? Who's been paying them, and have they been with ISIS for as long as the Benghazi scandal?
At least 2,400 Tunisian jihadists are fighting in Syria, most of them rebels affiliated to the radical Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Tunisia's interior minister said Monday."According to what we have gathered, there are 2,400 Tunisians who have gone to Syria to fight with al-Nusra Front and the majority of them -- 80 percent -- with (ISIL)," Lotfi Ben Jeddou told reporters, without specifying his source.
In February, the minister said Tunisian authorities had prevented 8,000 people [Tunisians, I assume] from traveling to Syria, while some 400 Tunisians had already returned from fighting there.
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/136219-around-2-400-tunisians-fighting-in-syria
On June 23rd, shortly after Obama gave Maliki the asinine ultimatum, John Kerry visited Maliki in Iraq, but did not reportedly demand or even suggest that he step down. Kerry is apparently unwilling to get into, or at least unwilling to reveal that he's in, Obama's asinine boat. Instead, Kerry urged Maliki to find a diplomatic way to appease the Sunni. Simultaneous with this meeting -- that Maliki must have appreciated very much -- we read that Iraq has allowed the 300 American spies to enter and spread out into Iraq. This likely signals that we won't again hear Obama demanding that Maliki resigns, at least not now.
That demand disappeared from the news over the weekend to the 24th. It worked to give Obama the excuse not to attack ISIS with air power. Maliki will not likely request U.S. air power anytime soon due to Obama's in-his-face reaction. Obama's demand began to open the eyes of news people to the apparent fact that he's trying to pull off a Mubarak / Qaddafi in Iraq. Obama's advisors probably advised him that this is not a good image to adopt.
The leader of the Kurds says he wishes for the U.S. to bless separation from Iraq.
http://www.aina.org/news/20140623183025.htmFrom Arutz Sheva: "...according to Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman - and Israeli experts say the Jewish state would be one of the first to recognize Kurdistan should it declare its independence." The article above says that the Kurds have taken Kirkuk from the Iraqi military, and the article below verifies what seems like a Kurd romp: "Several hundred Assyrians held a demonstration in Sodertalje, south of the Stockholm, on Sunday, June 22 to protest the Kurdish occupation of the Nineveh Plain. The protesters held signs saying "No to Kurdish occupation of the Nineveh Plain." The Assyrian heartland east of Mosul has come under Kurdish control following the fall of large areas of Iraq to ISIS."
http://www.aina.org/news/20140623174038.htmIt is not likely that the U.S. will bless the Kurd move openly, but it may be winked at under the table. On the other hand, there may be at least one reason for the U.S. wanting the Kurds to remain part of the Iraqi government even while finding more liberation from it. It is unfortunate that I cannot report Iraqi developments while trusting a word that comes from Obama from his media mouthpieces. In the news, there are many articles offered on Kerry's visit with the Kurds, but none speaking on his agenda with the Sunni. Which Sunni leaders will he visit, and what will he say to them as official foreign policy?
I rarely read anything on the details or even the presence of Baathists in the Sunni war. I'm not sure how to interpret this, whether it's a lot like Obama blaming the Benghazi-consulate attack on street demonstrations to hide the truth. That is, is he blaming ISIS for what other Sunni groups in truth have accomplished? It seemed logical that Obama was in cahoots with the Benghazi attackers, explaining why he wanted to hide who they were. Which Sunni is the O-dministration speaking with now? Surely, Obama has been speaking already with some Sunni factions, or, at least, his people have attempted contact. Why is this such a secret? In my opinion, if contact was attempted but turned down, the Obama mouth pieces would be telling us so. Therefore, I'm going to chose to believe that the O-people have been speaking with Sunni groups but keeping it hush. It seems to me that if the United States is in Iraq sincerely to make peace between the Shi'ites and Sunni, it would want to meet with the Sunni too. Has no one in Iraq inquired of Kerry's people to discover what the program with the Sunni is? That seems impossible. Kerry must be keeping his Sunni agenda under his hat.
Back on June 18, there was an article outlining Joe Biden's discussions: "Vice President Biden spoke today with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, and President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region Masoud Barzani." Although the article stresses the all-inclusiveness that, yawn, the Omericans speak every second word, there is nothing in the article on Biden speaking with any Sunni group. Is that not strange / suspicious to you?
http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/210171433/readout-of-the-vice-president-s-calls-with-iraqi-prime-minister-nouri-al-maliki-iraqi-council-of-representatives-speaker-osama-al-nujaifi-andIf there is a U.S. conspiracy in Iraq, it is a happy field day because Maliki has been unable even to regain control of an oil refinery...near Baghdad, Maliki's stronghold. The logical thing for the U.S. to do, if it's not behind the Sunni, is to support Kurdish battalions against ISIS, but I'm not reading that anywhere. The Kurds are already fighting ISIS, and are doing much better than Maliki, and yet we do not hear anything from the O-nited States on Kurd support for the war. We are left to assume that the U.S. wants peace, and only peace, between the three main people groups, but peace-peace diplomacy does not speak to the defeat of ISIS. How will ISIS be defeated if the Kurds are directed by the U.S. not to go to war against it? Does it not seem to you that the progress of ISIS is being facilitated by the peace-peace that Kerry is bringing to Iraq?
It is very easy, at this time especially, for the U.S. to tell the Kurds what to do, for the Kurds are on their best behavior toward Obama in hopes of getting his support toward separation. There is even a headline, "Iraq crisis: Kerry urges unity to expel Isis rebels" Wonderlandful, but how will a drive for mere unity stop the Sunni seeking autonomy? Kerry is expecting us to believe that ISIS will go away just as soon as Maliki gives the Sunni and Kurd tribes their fair political shakes. The story even says: "US Secretary of State John Kerry has told the BBC there must be regional unity to expel Sunni rebels from the Isis group who have taken large swathes of northern and western Iraq. He said there was no military solution, stressing the need for a new Iraqi government that empowered people in communities where Isis had taken hold." There you go, "no military solution" means that the wait for the ISIS monster to go home is going to be dragged out, so far as the U.S. can help it.
http://world.einnews.com/article/210822035/ZAUVFsHA67YGm8-rIn the map at the webpage above, one can see Tel Afar. In recent days, the Iraqi Kurds have decided to fight ISIS in that location's south side. Why wouldn't Kerry arm the Kurds for this offensive? Kerry would say that he doesn't want to offend the Sunni by arming the Kurds, but what Sunni group is Obama afraid of offending? If he supports the Kurds for attacking ISIS, is there anything to fear in offending other Sunni groupds? Apparently, yes. In my opinion, the Omericans are preparing certain Sunni for power positions until the O-genda has succeeded.
Reuters reports: "While in Baghdad on [June 23], Kerry said he had been assured by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki he would meet a July 1 deadline to form a new inclusive government." That short deadline on a gigantic goal sounds so fairylandish that Kerry must be accepting a false promise willingly just to make it look good, so long as the U.S. does not need to attack ISIS. So long as Maliki promises to make a peace deal with the Sunni, the U.S. thinks it can sit back and wait for some time. In the meantime, they can poke at Maliki for to make it difficult for him to retain his position. The poking is for the purpose of seeing Maliki ousted naturally from within:
Meanwhile, extremely concentrated political efforts are going on behind the scenes to get the politics in Baghdad right.Only then [after "extremely concentrated political efforts"] would America wade in and start doing anything physical [militarily]. There are urgent efforts to get parliament to meet on time on 1 July and to agree in advance who will be the new PM. Everybody I speak to says this will not be Nouri Maliki but one of about three other figures acceptable to Iran and America, which has a key role to play in trying to broker a deal.
I'm watching to see whether it is a feasible reality that the United States represents the anti-Christ entering Iraq diplomatically, and using the Sunni to ravage the entire country eventually. I'm entertaining an Obama-Sunni alliance for this reason. Consider how the timing of the Mosul-to-Baghdad invasion coincides with Iraq's post-election season, the time to form a new government. In Iraq, winning an election doesn't automatically make one the prime minister; others yet need to vote someone into that office. As of the post-election period, Maliki was in a great position to be chosen once again for the top job, but, suddenly, Obama seems to be working to undermine that very sure thing just as the time approaches for choosing a new prime minister:
Overshadowed by Iraq's intensified security crisis, the country certified the results of the 30 April parliamentary elections on 1 June - triggering the start of efforts to ratify the next prime minister and his cabinet with at least 163 seats in the 325-member parliament.Two-term Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and his State of Law alliance performed well...
...Competing as an MP in Baghdad, Mr Maliki won 721,000 votes - by far the highest personal vote of any Iraqi politician and even more votes than the 622,000 he gathered in 2010.
This performance put Mr Maliki in a commanding position to overcome opposition to a third term in office.
Indeed, when I met him and members of his inner circle in March they were confidently predicting their victory and making detailed plans for the third term.
The loss of government control across northern Iraq has arguably changed the picture.
...Only US Congressional leaders call for Mr Maliki to be ousted, viewing him as unsalvageable.
At this point Mr Maliki and his supporters do not accept that he should step down. After all, they argue with some justification, he and his bloc did receive greater electoral endorsement than any other faction. Is Iraq not a democracy?
Iran continues to signal its support for Mr Maliki, using a raft of Shia militant groups like Badr Organisation and Asaib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous).
The mainly-Shia Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) - with 30 seats in the parliament - has softened its opposition to a third term for Mr Maliki and co-operated with forming the "reserve army".
These factors are vital because as long as Mr Maliki is considered a viable leader by the Shia, he stands a strong chance of returning for a third term.
The identity of Iraq's next prime minister will be decided behind closed doors by the Shia, and they will take care to project a united front.
Their decision is probably now weeks away and may be resolved by the end of Ramadan in late July.
It looks like Maliki is going to be the next prime minister unless the 300 Omericans can find a way to undermine him from within. I think Maliki is unwise to allow the 300 into his country. The plot is obvious: Obama is telling the Shi'ites, who will choose a new prime minister, that if they want the ISIS monster repelled by U.S. force, they need a pro-American prime minister in place of Maliki. That's the bottom line: another coup by the shameless Obama circle, and they will feed the world garbage when telling it that they have their agenda set on behalf of Iraqi human rights.
The end of the true agenda is greater autonomy for the Kurds, and a Sunni populace / province that doesn't mind Western fingers in Kurd oil passing through Sunni areas in a pipeline(s) to Syria. If the Americans side against the Sunni, pipelines going west of Kurdistan (i.e. into Sunni areas) will be in jeopardy.
This past week, the EU suggested that the entire South Stream pipeline be suspended due to certain illegalities. But doesn't the EU really mean that it should be permanently terminated? So it hopes. This is the purpose behind the Ukrainian take-over by West-friendly leaders. Putin, for his part, was jolted, apparently, because he called on his government to revoke the license given him to station Russian military on the Ukraine border. It's seemingly an act of respect (like a white flag) toward the EU that's trying to weaken him. This decision came as he spoke on the phone with Obama [June 23], who threatened Putin with further sanctions if he continued to arm the Russian rebels inside the Ukraine.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/obama-urges-putin-to-support-ukrainian-peace-plan/502416.htmlIt turned out that the Syrian air force came to some assistance in bombing some Sunni targets. Maliki is thumbs up on this. He went on the BBC to chastise the O-mericans for not lending air support at what he views as the critical time for it, and then signaled that he's looking to Russia instead. He told the world openly that he regrets doing weaponry business with the U.S. alone:
In an interview to the BBC's Arabic service...Maliki said: "...We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened."He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus "that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days".
It could appear that Putin quickly decided to lay off the Ukraine situation when he got the call from Maliki to get involved in Iraq. For the West, this could turn a victory in the Ukraine to a deep sting in Iraq.
It looks like the Putin-Assad-Iran axis is cuddling up to Maliki while the Americans lend mere lip service and 300 supposed do-gooders with the purpose of spying things out. "'Their primary mission now is to assess the capabilities of the Iraqi army in and around Baghdad,' said Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman." Hmm, the 300 want to learn of the military condition more than spying out ISIS plans and positioning. It sounds normal to want to know the details of the Iraqi military if one has the job of improving it, but simultaneously, if Obama is the enemy, it allows the 300 to undermine Maliki. The 300-group is insisting that the help of Syria and Iran will be useless or counter-productive, which tells me that part of the O-genda is to make the U.S. voice number one. But simultaneously, Obama is calling for Maliki to step down. How much clout has Obama given the 300 for the purpose of getting Maliki's undivided heart and attention by that move?
http://www.iraqnews.net/index.php/sid/223293229/scat/c31d0aaa23b24a75/ht/US-Military-Advisers-Iraq-Assessments-to-Take-WeeksTo this day, we have little idea on the thinking, within the Putin inner circle, on current Iraq. The Russians do have a door open to a Kurd faction. The article below tells that the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is engaged in a "bitter power struggle" with Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). The latter "is allied with Turkey, Israel, the U.S. and other key players in the West, while the PKK is seeking support from Shiite regimes like Iran, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Nouri al-Maliki..." Russia could be included in that list, unless it doesn't want to take sides. For now, Russia seemingly stands within the established alliances of the Maliki circle.
http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20131125152308.htmSo, you see, the West has the benefits of the Barzani faction of Kurds, who represent the official government in Iraq's Kurdistan, while the PKK is strong as an outlawed group within Turkey. "Erdogan [Turkish prime minister] and Barzani have a common opponent in the PKK and want to break its strong dominance among the Kurds in Turkey. It is likely that such a policy is sanctioned by the U.S. and other Western countries, where oil plays a central role." We can learn above that the PKK has a "sister party in Syria" (PYD) that's in the Assad camp. The PKK and PYD are the majority of Kurds by far (over those that rule in Iraq); Putin could be lining himself up with these Kurds for the ultimate oil showdown.
While pretending to want eye-to-eye with the EU in the Ukraine, Putin has come out to speak against the move of the Ukraine toward the West: An illegal coup orchestrated by forces outside Ukraine [now ruling the Ukraine with EU protections] has caused a deep rift in Ukrainian society and forced the ex-Soviet nation to choose between Russia and the EU, Russian President Vladimir Putin said [June 27]. It's very important that he's using the word "coup" to bring attention to the string of coup's in the so-called "Arab spring" movement (supported by the West). Putin can now use that coup argument on behalf of saving Maliki from Obama. In fact, it was the Arab spring movement, that Obama was at first openly proud of, that reinspired jihadists and thus handed Putin the card he's now playing in Iraq. And it's Obama's great expenditures to date that now tends to keep the Americans paralyzed rather than able to re-enter Iraq. It will, from now on, be impossible for Obama to lay the full blame on Bush. From now on, what happens will be at least equally his fault.
I have finally learned that Putin has reacted to the Iraqi crisis, with a message to Maliki, as early as June 20, but I have not seen this story anywhere else. The headline says it all: "Putin offers Iraq's Maliki 'complete support' against jihadists".
"Putin confirmed Russia's complete support for the efforts of the Iraqi government to speedily liberate the territory of the republic from terrorists," the Kremlin said in a statement following a phone call between the two leaders....The conversation came after US President Barack Obama stopped short of acceding to Maliki's appeal for air strikes...
What does "complete support" mean? Is it like saying, "I love you, Mr. Maliki, this is just what I've been waiting years for"?
And so the cold war continues. Escalation is Obama's desire:
"According to AP, President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $500 million to train and arm vetted members of the Syrian opposition" This supposedly exposes Obama's desire to continue the war against Assad...but where will the money really go, Syria or Iraq? It wasn't long ago when Obama ceased funnelling aid to Syrian rebels as per the concerns of others that it might get to ISIS. What would be the difference now? Why is Obama seeking to fulfill a bad decision now? Because, he always wanted it, from the start. Consider the following suggestion:
Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.The officials said dozens of ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said [or so they thought, because that's what they heard from the U.S.] the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in Iraq.
...In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
...Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
...ISIS previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan...
WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIS and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaida-linked group.
...WND further reported that, according to a Shiite source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group [not necessarily ISIS]...was training fighters in Turkey.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/
The latter part indicates that the Maliki circle puts part of the blame on the O-mericans. When Maliki puts the blame on Saudi Arabia, he could be lumping the U.S. in with that accusation. The article goes on to suggest that Obama is part of ISIS when it says: "The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of ...ISIS, is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located. He called Obama 'an accomplice' in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government..."
A likely reason for the Saudi support of ISIS is put concisely by one blogger: "Qatar and Saudi Arabia want their gas to go [via pipelines] to Europe but Syria must become Sunni [first]." Europe should like to be a part of that Saudi oil through Syrian terrain, which could logically explain the West's support of Sunni fighters in Syria. So, yes, the U.S. and Saudis together are looking to profit in fuel sales to huge European markets, but for this to be maximized, Russia must be robbed of South Stream.
There is much fuel in Saudi Arabia, and yet the writing is on the wall telling that Iraq is slated to be a large player in the supply to Europe. It should not be surprising to find that the Saudi's would like to get their fingers into the Kurd-oil market.
In another WND daily article: "The Jordanian sources explained Obama's reported initial reluctance to assist in airstrikes in Iraq. The sources claimed striking along the Iraq-Syria border would cut off the supply line to rebels fighting in Syria." If I'm reading that correctly, it's saying that Obama did NOT want to cut supply lines to ISIS and the other Sunni fighters. Why not? There is no risk to civilians by using air-to-ground missiles on major roads, which leaves Obama without excuse for not using a few drones to knock out some roads. Maliki can't be blind to this, and so what does he have in mind for allowing the 300 back-stabbers into his country? Is it a political necessity? What would have been had he simply refused their entry on grounds that Iraqi citizenry opposed it?
Maliki has pointed out that the Americans stalled on the delivery of [contracted] jets and missiles, for which reason the U.S. is to blame for the current crisis. "He blamed the U.S. for its 'long, very slow way' in delaying the delivery of 36 aircraft which have been on order for some time." That's interesting, because the delay can be explained in that the O-military wanted Maliki completely vulnerable to the Sunni attacks.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/iraq-the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/For anyone interested in contemplating the 200 million soldiers described as "kings of the east," it's interesting that China has called home (to China) 1,200 workers in oil-related industry of northern Iraq. But of similar interest:
The conflict between Iraq's government and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has begun to spread concerns throughout the region, particularly in India. Last week, the country was concerned over the unknown whereabouts of 40 Indian construction workers. The workers were in a territory that had been captured by the terrorist group ISIS.Now, new concerns have emerged as India’s largest Shia organization began to recruit volunteers to defend Shia holy shrines in Iraq that may soon fall into the hands of ISIS. It is estimated that nearly 30,000 Indian Shia Muslims have already signed up to fight and applied for visas to fly into Iraq.
What man in his right mind, nearly 2,000 years ago, would predict an army of 200 million trampling over Iraq, when, perhaps, the entire world didn't have that many in total population? A false prophet is not expected to use such a figure while wishing to be taken seriously, wherefore it tends to reveal that the Revelation prophecy is from a John who was indeed seeing visions from God. India and China combined have in the range of two billion people now, or some ten times 200 million.
By Sunday, Iraq claimed to have re-taken some of Tikrit, as well as having received a few Russian jets with more to arrive later. Also, "Iraqi government officials said Sunday that Russian experts had arrived in Iraq to help the army get 12 new Russian warplanes into the fight against Sunni extremists." This is Putin's stepping stone into critical-political Iraq, an event I've been waiting years for. It looks like Syria all over again, with Russia protecting the leader that the O-mericans want ousted. It appears that the jets are being expedited to give Maliki a better chance to remain the leader, which is not to say that Putin likes Maliki in particular, but that Putin wants to check the American agenda. The Tikrit event has the potential to inspire pro-Baathists to join the conflict.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-sends-sukhoi-jets-to-iraq-slams-west-over-syria/502685.html
https://hydrablog.csusm.edu/2014/06/iraq-says-russian-experts-have.htmlIf Maliki can get a quick victory in Tikrit, he's promised to re-take Mosul after that. When we read, "Iraqi officials denied that there was any American role [in the fight for Tikrit as of June 29]", it suggests that Maliki did not involve the 300 Americans. With Russia in the front door now, not only can Putin watch what the 300 are doing, or inquire from Maliki on what they are doing, but he can poke at them for the purpose of having Maliki minimize their operations. It wouldn't take much to convince Maliki that the 300 are not genuinely interested in Iraq.
To the last day of this update, none of the news media seem to be taking care to point out that there are multiple Sunni groups involved; the events are addressed solely from the point of view of an ISIS monster. I never heard a peep on John Kerry's speaking to any Sunni group. I've not heard a peep on anyone of his fellow 300 advisors speaking with one or more Sunni groups.
There is an article (from Britain) telling that Iraq's largest Sunni tribe is on-side with ISIS: "Ali Hatem Suleimani tells Telegraph he will not break his military alliance with Isis to help form a united Sunni-Shia government while Nouri al-Maliki remains Iraqi prime minister." It sounds like something Obama might want him to say. Plus, the following speaks to a Sunni will for reaching a deal with the Kurds for the sake of autonomy: "the [Sunni] tribal leaders have given an unbending view of the role of the central government, making clear that like the Kurds they would support the break-up of Iraq into three states, Shia, Sunni and Kurdish."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10934438/We-will-stand-by-Isis-until-Maliki-steps-down-says-leader-of-Iraqs-biggest-tribe.htmlUntil now, late during this week's update, I have not ventured to see what the alternative-news sites are saying on Iraq. There are a slew of websites who see it the way that I'm entertaining it, as a manipulated Western plot via the Sunni advance. While the page below doesn't go that far, it quotes from the minutes of an official British-government meeting(s), prior to the Bush invasion of 2003, concerning Britain's quest to secure Iraqi oil as a result of replacing Saddam Hussein:
The Guardian outlined, the invasion's:
"real goal -- as Greg Muttitt documented in his book 'Fuel on the Fire', citing declassified Foreign Office files....was stabilizing global energy supplies (especially) ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets" with advantage to US and UK companies.The documents showed that the US and UK sought to privatise Iraq's oil production and carve it up amongst favored investors.
...In October and November 2002, documents came to light showing that then, just months before the invasion: 'Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.'
In 2002, the crisis was not yet in existence because Bush had not yet invaded Saddam. You need to go to alternative news sites to get information such as this (I don't have a list, or even favorites, in alternative news). From this perspective, the best reason for Britain's and the EU's support for Iraqi regime change now is the Kurd-oil stand-off. There is nothing that drives this effort aside from greed and self-interest. It's a testimony for the Arabs that the West is a disguised, satanic rat. How could Maliki be blind to it? He's not. He's involved. He wants to be the seller of the oil to the West, but his problem is that Kurds want too much of the profits. For several years, he has been effectively denying Europe the oil from the Kurds, and here we are at the stand-off.
Is it possible for ISIS to win wars by selling seized oil? We are supposed to believe that this is exactly what catapulted ISIS to power in Iraq. But others are finding this difficult too. The writer at the following page goes further than denying the picture; he/she says that the West is helping ISIS to sell the oil: "...a question arises to which the Atlanticist media and the Gulf still has no answer: how can these terrorists sell oil on the international market so monitored by Washington? In March, the Libyan Benghazi separatists had failed to sell the oil that they had seized. The U.S. Navy intercepted the tanker Morning Glory and had returned it to Libya. If the Frente al-Nosra and the ISIL are able to sell oil on the international market, they are authorized by Washington and are linked to storefront oil companies...It was learned that the oil stolen by the Frente al-Nosra in Syria is sold by Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefeller firm that rules Qatar), while that of ISIL is operated by Aramco (USA / Saudi Arabia )." Believe it or not...but the writer doesn't give evidence for the latter claim. "Kurdistan has begun its oil exports from Kirkuk via the ISIL-controlled pipeline."
http://www.thetruthunites.com/middle-east/jihadism-petroleum-industry/The article thus gives us cause to do a search for ISIS connections to Saudi Aramco ("world's most valuable company"), but I can't find evidence for such an alliance, though it is logical / predictable. There is a difference between that picture and Baathists seeking to take Maliki's government, but the U.S. can be viewed as instrumental (in the least) in both operations. Aramco, we would assume, would like to see a pipeline from Kurdistan to the Syrian coast; and Baathists, if they re-take Iraq, will govern that pipeline, one would think, underscoring the need for an oil deal between the Sunni and Kurds. On the other hand, the Sunni could seek to take Kurdistan itself, which is my prediction for the very end, when the anti-Christ steps in to support the Sunni.
The Saudi king has come out to vilify the Sunni terrorists. It's very possible that there are some Sunni actions and factions that the Saudis find unacceptable even while the Saudi's promote the Sunni war to the degree that the Kurd oil is liberated from Maliki. For example, the Saudi's may share the following sentiments (as seen from the Telegraph article mentioned above): "In an interview with The Telegraph, Ali Hatem Suleimani [leader of the Dulaim tribe] distanced himself from Isis's sectarian massacres but rejected demands that he break with the group and help form a united Sunni-Shia government."
The article goes on to tell how the Sunni tribes could be easily on dynamic speaking terms with the Kurds: "Mr Suleimani was speaking in Erbil, capital of Iraq's Kurdish autonomous region, where he and a raft of other Sunni tribal leaders who have joined forces with Isis have been given sanctuary despite being wanted by the Iraqi government." I was surprised to find this statement. I had not read this anywhere else. It sounds like Kurd deals even with ISIS could be in the works. Wouldn't we expect Kerry's department to have attempted contact with these Sunni tribes while (or before) Kerry was in Kurdistan?
The Telegraph article reveals further that ISIS is not the major player: "They [Sunni tribal leaders] insist publicly that Isis...is playing only a minor role in the insurgency and that they can easily 'deal with them' once they have forced a political solution that gives them greater autonomy and ends what they say is harassment of Sunnis by security forces." So, just like the Sunni and Kurds, the West could be using ISIS to win liberation from the Maliki policies. We then need to ask whether it's pure coincidence that the West and the Sunni have the same purpose for ISIS, or whether they plotted together to use ISIS in this way.
Western media may have been directed not to focus on this Sunni pact with ISIS because it tends to justify for Maliki's past rejection of some Sunni elements within his government. The O-hypocrite, who would not share his government equally with unarmed Republicans, is demanding that Maliki share his with Sunni willing to use ISIS. It's not the picture that pro-Obama media would like us to have.
It is unlikely that Baathist Sunni are now hiding out in Kurdistan, for the Kurds were the sworn enemies of the Baathist regime. We'll need to wait and see what the outcome in Tikrit will be to judge what the Baathist condition might be to date.
ISIS declared an Islamic state stretching from northern Iraq to northern Syria. Perhaps this is the start of the neo-Seleucid kingdom in which the anti-Christ arises (Daniel 8 and 11).
At a wedding on Saturday, I got talking to a young man training to be a police officer in Massachusetts. I asked whether it's true that Masons are in that police department, and he responded with one straight-forward word, "yes." He's just a trainee, and he knows it. This was excellent corroboration because, when I looked at the events of the Boston-Marathon bombing, it seemed necessary to accuse Masons in the Massachusetts government(s) for faking that event.
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