---

Take a look at this, asking if the Americans are using a faked situation now for building a scenario that allows them to later attack Russian bases and jets, blaming it on ISIS:

MOSCOW(Sputnik) - The Russian Defense Ministry categorically denied on Tuesday reports of alleged destruction of Russian helicopters operating in Syria and casualties among the personnel of the Russian airbase near Syria's Latakia.

Earlier in the day, US-based intelligence analysis company Stratfor said in a report that Daesh jihadists possibly destroyed four Russian Mi-24 attack helicopters in an artillery attack on an airbase in Syria. The firm cited satellite imagery it acquired.

"All Russian combat helicopters in Syria carry out planned tasks aimed at eliminating terrorists. There are no casualties among personnel of the Russian base," the ministry's spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

Konashenkov stressed that rumors of alleged destruction of an entire unit of Russian combat helicopters and two dozen of trucks at the Hmeymim airbase originated from Daesh terrorists who fruitlessly attempted to "sell" this so-called "breaking news" some 10 days ago.

According to Stratfor, the attack on the airbase, located in the Homs province near the city of Palmyra, occurred on May 14. On the same day, the Daesh group, which is outlawed in Russia and many other countries, claimed that its militants had destroyed four Russian attack helicopters and 20 trucks loaded with ammunition.

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160524/1040164121/russia-syria-airbase-hmeymim.html

Why would the Russians lie about such a thing? If ISIS did destroy their craft, it would be the Russian ticket to really throttling ISIS at this time, with no outsiders justified in opposing the move. But if the Russians are telling the truth, how do we explain that an American satellite(s) apparently photographed the destruction that never happened? Isn't it likely that while the U.S. version of the story is circulating in the West, the Russian version is not? If stories like this continue to be aired, it allows the Americans to shoot down Russian planes, blaming it on ISIS. Are the American angels that desperate?

Russia had been eyeing Israeli gas, but suddenly, a new announcement: "Russian energy giant Gazprom will not continue the collaboration with the Israel's Leviathan gas field in the Mediterranean Sea, Russian media reported Wednesday, citing an unnamed Gazprom source...Gazprom is reportedly not considering any other projects in Israel at the moment...In 2012, the company was in talks with Leviathan's operating firms on buying a 30-percent stake in the development project. At the time, Total, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Woodside Petroleum also wanted a part in the project, however Gazprom offered the largest sum." Such a stake, where Gazprom is an arm of the Russian government, can explain why Russia would need to be friendly toward Israel. The reason for the separation is not told; it may be that Israel has been coaxed to rejecting Gazprom for some Western company instead. Or, the deal may have failed due to Russia's protection of Assad, and who knows but that Israel was feigning willingness for the deal just to keep Russia from over-acting in Syria. This could get Russia's ire, couldn't it? "Currently, the Leviathan gas field, first drilled in 2011, is one of the largest young gas reserves in the world. "
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160525/1040207565/russia-israerl-gazprom-field.html

This week, the Russian Israeli, Avigdor Lieberman, became, again, Israel's foreign minister. Lieberman is not a friend of the U.S.

The attack on Raqqah has been started by the Western coalition: "Syrian Kurds began an anticipated operation against the Islamic State (IS) in Raqqa province in northern Syria at around 2 p.m. on May 24, according to reports. The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which includes the People's Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), began the operation after a long preparation process, Rudaw reported." U.S. air strikes are reportedly part of this offensive. The U.S. does not have permission from the Syrian government for these things, but then the U.S. is desperate to take control of Syrian operations. I don't see how the U.S. can gain in the end with this operation. Ultimately, the city goes to Assad, and conflict between the Kurds and Assad starts as soon as the city is taken.

It is inconceivable to me that the U.S. has any interest in ruining ISIS. I therefore predict that the U.S. will allow ISIS fighters to escape the city, to fight another day elsewhere. The offensive is reportedly coming from north of the city. There is a chance that the U.S. will seek to have the Kurds lose this battle. If these Kurds were in Russia's hands, the defeat of ISIS would be more assured and sound.

Here is the open opinion, never been seen (by me) in the news before, of a Syrian that reflects my own opinion: "The United States used the ceasefire in Syria to let an army of many thousands of armed militants infiltrate the country, Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad told Sputnik." It sounds logical. Just think of the hypocrisy of the West if this is true.

It's probably a waste of time covering these events because, in order for Daniel-11 prophecy to arrive, the anti-Christ in the Iraq-Syria theater needs to invade Egypt. Nothing of the sort seems feasible this year. How would such a situation arise? In my opinion, it arises when some warring group in the Middle East starts to concentrate on the destruction of Israel. While anti-Israeli groups exist in the Middle East, both Sunni and Shi'ite, an attack on Egypt, as a precursor to an attack on Israel, seems unlikely this year.

What would it take to make the Iran axis concentrate on Israel rather than ISIS? Ironically, while ISIS consists of outspoken anti-Israeli's who would well-fulfill the beheadings in Revelation 20, Iran doesn't appear poised to use ISIS as a partner in invading Israel. Iran wants to defeat ISIS in an effort to save Assad, yet a large part of the reason behind saving Assad is to keep a president who opposes Israel. In what way may we envision a warmer relationship between Iran and ISIS for a common cause? For one, if Russia decides to befriend some Sunni in efforts to thwart the Western agenda. Right now, Russia is open arms toward the Kurds, yet the Kurds are leaning toward the United States. This could cause a Russian backlash against the Kurds, or an abandonment of them, deciding to befriend the Sunni instead. Perhaps the only way to have the Russians make Iran and Assad more agreeable to a Russian-Sunni friendship is to talk secretly on Israel's destruction, using the Sunni to help make it happen. In fact, Russia could make it appear that the Sunni are spearheading that movement.

Even if the Americans are secretly slipping weapons to the part of ISIS that they commonly deal with, not all of ISIS is privy to it. There are ways to make it appear that the weapons were intended for the Syrian rebels while "accidentally" found by the part of ISIS that the U.S. negotiates with. However, the other parts of ISIS who think that America is their enemy might be willing to address the Russians, all the more if the Raqqah offensive proves dreadful for them. I haven't read what Assad thinks of the Kurd-American thrust against Raqqah, nor how the Syrians plan on contributing to this offensive.

Conceivably, the situation now allows a Russia-Sunni friendship, but not a Russia-ISIS friendship. Russia has basked in the "glory" of weakening ISIS too-recently to now befriend it. If ISIS loses the ground it gained in the last one-to-two years, and where it seems hopeless to remove Assad with both the U.S. and Russia opposed to their presence in Syria, ISIS could decide that there is a better day on the Israeli horizon. The idea here would be to start calling out for anti-Israeli fighters from all groups, and to thereby re-vamp all the current alliances by making some of their enemies into their partners in war. There would be more zeal in its growing roster in a fight against Israel than in one against Assad. This sort of situation, from smallness to greatness, is expected from a read of Daniel 11:23-24.

How possibly could the covering of Israel's mountains with Gog's forces come about? At this time, I can't imagine a Russian army direct from Russia to Israel. But if Russia started to fill Syria with thousands of fighters in an effort to combat Western plots, the situation would be much-more conducive to an invasion of Israel. How long will it be before the current struggle for the Middle East gets so far as thousands of Russian fighters in Syria? Can anything hasten it?

We need to factor in Obama. This is his last year. If he has desired to open a route for ISIS toward Israel, there is some opportunity now. With ISIS losing its easy operation in both Mosul and Raqqah, it will need to re-plan, set up a new agenda for survival as a group. ISIS became strong in the first place with an anti-Israel, pro-Mohammad image. As ISIS sees a migration of its fighters to other groups, very possibly in the coming months (if it hasn't already started), we might see the group depending on an anti-Israeli figurehead once again. Although it's my second option, I allow a Western anti-Christ instead of a Russian one.

Obama doesn't need to see Israel invaded by ISIS while he's the president. He can work toward it for as long as he has time, leaving Office with that situation to the best of his ability. With Lieberman now the foreign minister again, it's bound to anger Obama. I'm not fooled by the soft image that Obama exudes; I think this man is a conniver with with dirty groups having dirty plots. He revealed his ambitions to let northern Africa go to Muslim fundamentalists; why should Syria be any different? It's possible and even likely that while he wants ISIS to prosper, the U.S. military is filled with leaders who want ISIS quashed. Obama therefore needs to play games with the Defence Department and the military establishment in efforts to keep ISIS strong. It's my opinion that Obama is working with military leaders and CIA agents who wish to use ISIS to Americanize Syria, but, for Obama, this is merely an excuse. I don't think he gives a hoot for American interests globally. I don't think Obama is an American at heart.

Here is a story I've been waiting for: "Russia Increases Strikes on Illegal Oil Transport Routesin Syria" Why has it taken so long to get news like this? It implies that such strikes have been ongoing, only ramped up now. No doubt, Russia is restricted on how badly it can bomb; it can't be ruining all the roads in Syria so that people can't get to work. The best thing to do is to bomb the entry points (driveways) to the refineries used exclusively by ISIS. And this is where the Americans have failed in Iraq...because the Americans want ISIS to prosper. It;s obviously, or we would be hearing of the American war against ISIS' oil deliveries. We don't hear about it, because the Americans don't want this to come to mind. It would have us asking why they don't bomb the grounds all around the oil refineries. It could be done repeatedly as soon as ISIS fixes the bombed areas, until they realize there's no use, and until no one would go to work in the refineries.

Look at how the Sputnik story puts it: "Russian warplanes have increased airstrikes against illegal oil production sites and oil smuggling routes in Syria since May 20, head of the Russian General Staff Lt. Gen. Sergey Rudskoy said Friday. According to him, Moscow and Washington have agreed on the need to decrease the economic potential of the terrorist groups Daesh and Al-Nusra." Washington has agreed??? Until this month, the Russians and Americans weren't talking concerning Syria, but now that they are talking, the Russians brought this issue up, and the Americans have no real excuse to oppose it...because they are feigning an anti-ISIS position. Having no other choice but to create excuses, the Americans have done so: ""Unfortunately, aside from their persistent requests not to hit al-Nusra Front targets due to the fact that units of the so-called 'moderate opposition' could be nearby, our American partners have not taken any decisive steps," he added."
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160527/1040348464/russia-syrian-general-staff.html

The article goes on to show how the Americans are protecting the Nusra Front using this excuse:

"Despite the agreements reached between the United States and Russia, the issue of drawing out zones controlled by the 'moderate opposition' from territory occupied by Nusra Front militants has not been agreed upon, which won't allow for an effective fight against this terrorist organization. The question arises as to when the American side will take measures on separating formations from the 'moderate opposition' from the territory occupied by Nusra Front militants, and they finally tell us the coordinates of these regions,' Rudskoy said during a briefing.

It sounds like the Russians are tattling on the Americans, showing their true colors for wanting to keep terrorist organizations alive in Syria. The Russians are using the ceasefire talks to their advantage by airing the fact that the U.S. is very slow in fighting Nusra and ISIS for to keep them reserved in fighting Assad. There is no true love between Russia and the U.S. at this time, and the U.S. accepted to create the ceasefire with Russia at their table for to deceive them into ceasing military operations. "Meanwhile, Syria-bound trucks loaded with weapons for Al-Nusra Front terrorists are arriving in Syria, the head of the Russian General Staff said." You won't read that in Western news. The American reaction to this will predictably be that the Russians are inadvertently killing "civilians" (or the moderate opposition) while seeking to destroy Nusra.

The anti-Assad fighters have less qualms for destroying roads and other infra-structure because it makes things harder for Syrian workers, adding pressure on Assad to succumb to terrorist demands. But the U.S. likes to see these roads destroyed if it makes things harder on Assad. So far as Syrians on the streets are concerned, it would have been far better had the West not supported the coup attempt. This Syria operation probably owes much to the speed of Obama's coups in Egypt and Libya. His globalists probably thought that similar speed could be used on Assad. It's debatable on whether God is using the festering Syrian war (or stalemate) as a means to bring the anti-Christ to the world.

The current situation is not conducive to an overthrow of Assad by the rebels. Pressure is on the U.S. to at least make their anti-terrorist stance look true. I don't see this pressure subsiding so long as Russia is involved in saving Assad. I absolutely believe Russia's accusation that the West is using the ceasefire to re-arm the rebels. The American agenda will be found out; the Kurds will see this when they see the Americans covering for ISIS in Raqqah. You will read Western false reports that the U.S. is doing a good job with the Kurds in Raqqah, but I predict closer to the to be in Kurd and Russian media. The Kurd media I'm using now is generally pro-West, and yet it has some announcements unfavorable to the U.S. made by Kurdish leaders.

In a story on the Fallujah offensive: "On Friday, the Pentagon said that US air strikes had killed over 70 Isil fighters in Fallujah, including Maher Al-Bilawi, the terrorist movement's commander in the city." Hmm, zero civilians killed, 70 of the enemy killed. Do I really believe this? Not a chance. It's the U.S.'s way to appear anti-ISIS, like it's doing its job. The situation promises a long, drawn-out, complicated war: "As Iraqi forces close in on Fallujah, they are facing what is essentially a city-wide hostage crisis. Some 1,700 Isil fighters are believed to be holding perhaps 50,000 civilians in the centre of the city, hoping that government troops and their Shia militia allies will refrain from launching an all-out assault for fear of killing innocents." Iraq has become a nightmare since George Bush. That's a fact, not merely a statement.
http://www.aina.org/news/20160528085255.htm

Possibly, or even probably, the Middle-East nightmare is God's hand of Israel's enemies. It doesn't matter that God himself is unhappy with modern Israel; the fact is, Muslims would oppose Israel even if it were pleasing to God. And Muslims oppose the God of Israel as a rule. This is the Muslim irony, that while claiming the God of Israel for their own, they are slated to be wiped out by that God. Basically, this is a cup of insanity poured out on the Middle-East, and the worst is yet to come. Does God expect us to have deep feelings for the misery? I honestly don't know. The non-Muslim / secular Arabs tend to be Westernized, but even that is an affront to the God of Israel.

The guilt of ISIS is apparent to all. These are the demons of our present world. Rather than fight like men, they hold-up in cities covered by civilians, terrible dogs who even kill those not willing to join them in this atrocity. Yet, the Americans, Westernized scums, support ISIS. Lest you come to think that the Americans are God's holy ones performing his Middle-East agenda, I remind you that the West is the Great Satan. Make no mistake about it. I live in the West; I know what it is. I watched it become the Great Satan while being a Bible-knowing Christian. I do not have this view wrong; it is bang-on correct. Obama is the epitome of America's Great-Satan spirit, and he's in the Middle East setting it afire in the wake of the same from Bush. There can be no hope in the Middle East, whether ISIS or the West wins it. If the West succeeds in putting a moderate government in Syria, yet the terrorists will remain the vultures swooping down to defecate all over the "success."

Isaiah 13 speaks on end-time "holy ones" used as military agents to utterly destroy Iraq. You need to read the prophecy if you haven't. These holy ones are identified, apparently, as the Medes. It doesn't suggest the Americans necessarily. The prophecy concerns the very end. My view is that this Iraq is the kingdom of the anti-Christ at the time. Nothing in Syria is mentioned. Instead, the prophecy concerns Assyria and Babylon, both in Iraq. Therefore, we should expect the Syrian war to overflow into Iraq. In 14:20, we read that the king of Babylon (anti-Christ assumed) will destroy his own land and kill its own people, which can suggest that he will be an Iraqi / Arab / Muslim. However, there are others ways to view this. It reads: "...you ruined your land; you have slain your people..." It definitely sounds as though he will be an Iraqi.

When we get to verses 24 and 25, however, it looks like this king is Ezekiel's Gog: "...as I have purposed it...to break Assyria in My land, and trample him on My mountains." It's not far back, in Isaiah 10, that the Assyrian king is shown in a path to Jerusalem after taking Damascus. Trying to resolve these complications into a reasonable interpretation isn't easy. Why would Ezekiel use Gog of Magog to indicate what Isaiah calls Assyria? Since when was Assyria the land of Magog? I don't know of one historical quote making that equation. Is the king of Isaiah 13 not the Gog of Ezekiel? Are they two distinct powers simultaneously on the mountains of Israel? The Assyrian capital was where Mosul is now located. Was Mosul named by Meshech? Will the anti-Christ be a Meshechian?

Can there be such a thing as a Muslim Gog? In that case, why does Daniel 7 have the anti-Christ an extension of the Roman empire? Perhaps prophetic fulfillment is 50 years off, after the Europeans have re-vamped the Middle East into an EU satellite. In that case, why do I bother reporting my views on current Middle-East events?

It only gets harder to make sense of when Daniel 8 and 11 suggest a Greek character in association with the Seleucids. It doesn't seem that the Spirit of God was trying to make this a straight-forward understanding, but the Seleucid entry assures that the anti-Christ will arise in the Syria-Iraq part of the Middle East. It's part of what keeps me interested in following the situation.

One scenario is that there will be a Muslim EU leader in time. Would you have believed anyone, a few years ago, if a Muslim mayor for London was predicted? That's what happened just weeks ago. I would never have predicted it. Is this indication of a Rothschild branch in England that favors catering to a Muslim world-crowd for to create an Arab-incorporating globalism? Is this the thrust toward making the Middle-East an EU satellite? Isn't this what the animosity is all about between Britain and the right-wing Israeli's? Isn't this what Palestinian statehood is all about that most EU leaders have been calling for? Isn't this the anti-God wretch, the hoar? Aren't Rothschilds from Rosh and Meshech?

So what am I saying? I haven't got a clue. Am I saying that the anti-Christ will belong to this pro-Muslim, Rothschilian, globalist booby-trap? Or am I saying that the Russians will furnish him? I used to think I knew the answer, but current events are not fitting the predictions from my views. I may have been wrong, or I could still be mainly correct if prophecy is yet a decade or more away.

I find it doubtful that any Rothschild group with global reach is in favor of Iran, which is why project-Iraq, as it now stands, is not to the liking of Rothschilds. Project Bush didn't work to Rothschilian liking, and the prediction is that some Sunni group in Baghdad is preferable to the current administration arm-in-arm with Iran. It predicts that the EU will elongate the Middle-East nightmare with a re-vamping also of Baghdad. Perhaps ISIS has been part of this quest. All eyes on what happens to ISIS in both Falluja and Mosul. If ISIS wins, the agony of Iraq continues. Perhaps the West now seeks to get ISIS out of Raqqah and into Mosul to reinforce defenses there. If that happens, there could be a focus shift to the Iraq theater, leaving Assad to prosper all-the-more for an interim. Soon, a new American president could begin to make decisions different than those of Obama. My guess is that Trump will defeat Clinton.

According to Assad, Qatar is one of his enemies along with Saudi Arabia. Qatar owns Al-Jazeera, which provided this article on the start of the Falluja battle:

...Up to 50,000 troops including army, police, counterterrorism personnel, Shia militia men and Sunni tribal fighters are taking part in the offensive that began on [May 23].

More than 15 Shia militias are involved. It's a fact that some of these militias, which are armed and funded by Iran, are stronger than the Iraqi army. he US-led coalition has in the past refused to allow these militias to participate, fearing sectarian reprisal attacks. It's not clear if the coalition leaders think differently this time around.

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/middleeast/2016/05/iraq-fallujah-sectarian-backlash-160525135621057.html

One could take the U.S. stance, in that regard, as just another excuse not to go in and weaken ISIS. It also speaks to the West not wishing to enhance Irano-Iraqi control into northern Iraq. ISIS is the neutralizing agent between Baghdad and the Kurdish oil. ISIS neutralizes Iraq while Kurds sell oil for Western and Israeli interests at low prices. This oil deal is the West's fork into the Iraqi eye, a good simile because Baghdad doesn't seem to see it. It treats America as a friend to this day, hoping to get planes from it. America would have no friends if it didn't have money. America is nothing but sheer power, not anyone you would want over for dinner. America is power incarnate, like an ego mutated into the Great Satan. It lies, it plays power cards, goes on power trips, and prostitutes itself to any heinous group usable for the moment. But let me be clear: there is a vast difference between some American people and the U.S. government under Obama. I am not speaking to Americans as an entire lot. I have known excellent American people, albeit they are under the delusion that the American military is a good thing.

Another article on Falluja adds: "Baghdad-based US Colonel Steve Warren said that over the last four days, 20 strikes in the city had destroyed ISIL fighting positions and gun emplacements." This is where the U.S. claims 70 ISIS fighters killed, but I don't believe a word of it. Twenty strikes in four days could be construed as the bare minimum, and perhaps even exaggerated. Who really knows what they hit with as few as ten strikes? "Coalition officials estimated earlier this week that 500-700 ISIL fighters remain in the city, according to a US military estimate, hiding amongst the civilian population." It's hard to believe that this few can control a city of dozens of thousands. It sounds as though most of them have left the city. Where did they go? The article claims that Iraq has decided to surround the city on all sides, leaving no escape routes.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/fallujah-iraqi-forces-closing-isil-held-city-160528125723150.html

As could be expected under circumstances where ISIS is being attacked in multiple cities at once, the group has provided for itself (or is attempting to) a route into Turkey:

More than 100,000 Syrians were trapped near the Turkish border as fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group advanced on two strategically-vital towns....

...Turkey has closed its border to all but seriously wounded Syrians.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-azaz-160527143745630.html

Translation: Turkey is accepting ISIS fighters but wants to put out the message that it isn't so. To put the situation in perspective, with Aleppo in the picture, "...Daesh terrorists cut a major road between the militant-held towns of Azaz and Marea close to the Turkish border, besieging 15,000 people in Marea and triggering a potential 'disaster' according to Azaz-based journalist Maamoun Khateeb." With the Kurds at the spearing of this offensive, it's a no-brainer that Turkey would allow ISIS fighters to escape across its border, where possible and where needed.

It's been hard to find any news at all on the Mosul offensive that Iraq claimed, weeks ago, was in process. It seems as though it was quietly abandoned. Why? Ahh, it's the American excuse again: "However, the expert [U.W. envoy for anti-Daesh coalition, Brett H. McGurk] does not believe that the forces of the international coalition will soon be able to recapture the city of Mosul in northern Iraq which is currently under the control of jihadists. 'We have not yet reached the stage at which we can launch an attack on Mosul. It takes time,' McGurk said." That article is dated late this week. It probably means that the U.S. was unwilling to assist the Iraqis in the Mosul invasion. Instead, the Americans probably skirted the battle by suggesting the attack on Falluja instead. Loss of Mosul to Iraq jeopardizes the entire purpose of ISIS, as far as American interests in Kurdistan go. So, maybe next year, maybe not, for the Mosul offensive. Dumb-bell Iraqis.
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160528/1040424223/us-nato-anti-daesh.html

RT (Russia Today) is a pro-Putin Russian media that was given a video of the Boston Marathon's ground zero by an American (I must assume) who was on-site. The video released by RT starts at about three minutes, 10 seconds after the feigned explosion. The video was released because it was able to show a fake event involving a child posing on a stretcher for media purposes. Why did the American give his video to a Russian media? Probably, because he realized that the explosion was a faked, inside job. Here is RT claiming to have photos of Americans on the ground in northern Syria's Raqqah area:
https://www.rt.com/usa/344529-special-forces-isis-raqqa/

They are dressed in combat uniforms, and don guns. If the enemy attacks, they'll use their guns, right? If they die, they will be called advisors on the ground who got in the way of fire. The fact that the Americans wore Kurdish badges / logos on their uniforms can suggest that they didn't want to be known as Americans in combat uniforms, and has additional value. Clearly, Raqqah is the most-important Middle-Eastern front for America at this time. Why? There is a Euphrates-river highway from Falluja to Raqqah, and a road north from Raqqah into Turkey at Carchemish. The Assad axis was advancing toward Raqqah, in a position to take it soon. That's why. Assad would have cut off the ISIS route from Raqqah into Turkey. The stinking Americans (disgust intended) knew that this would have been critical for their purposes. Here's a map (Falluja, not shown, is between Ramadi and Baghdad):
http://www.mapsofworld.com/asia/maps/iraq-syria-map.jpg

Another RT article says that Russia's foreign minister is requesting to cooperate with the American-led battle for Raqqah, but, certainly, the Russians can move in and do something on their own, with Assad's assistance. The two sides can each take half of the city, and the increased fighters would have a much better chance of success. It's not a wonder, then, that the Americans are turning the Russians down. The Russian's have first chosen to request cooperation, a smart move politically, because it makes the Americans looks like hypocrites. And that's what they are. We await the outcome;

"{The Liberation of} Raqqa is undoubtedly one of the goals of the anti-terror coalition, as well as the Iraqi city of Mosul," Lavrov said on Tuesday, noting that the two cities could have been recaptured sooner and more effectively if Russian and American military forces started coordinating their moves.

"Right now there is a chance that such coordination will take place," Lavrov said, adding that he can "responsibly confirm" that Moscow is ready for such coordination.

https://www.rt.com/news/344260-isis-raqqa-synchronized-efforts/

Russia is ready to work together. America is not. Which of the two look better to the world watching? Isn't it true that the Americans are the chief terrorists in Syria? The Russians aren't stupid; they know it far better than I. They know what the Americans are doing. The Russians can take responsibility for the opposite sides of the city from where the Kurds enter. The Russians can cover the "back door." But that is exactly what the Americans don't want.

Is ISIS within Raqqah fighting hard to date? "The SDF {Syrian Democratic Forces} have begun operations to clear the northern countryside, so this is putting pressure on Raqqa," a Baghdad-based US military spokesman, Colonel Steve Warren said, as quoted by AFP. Warren added that the operation began earlier on Tuesday, and that SDF, a US-backed coalition of armed groups led by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), have been met with little resistance from terrorists so far." Did they all leave already? "According to the spokesman, approximately 3,000 to 5,000 Islamic State fighters are currently in Raqqa. He said, however, it was not clear when an assault on the key city itself might eventually occur."

What happens if nothing happens to Raqqah? It allows the Russians to try the same, to show how to get the job done. That is what the U.S. is risking at this time, being upstaged again by Russia, and the latter is pressing all the right buttons for that possible scenario if the U.S. doesn't deliver. The prediction is that the Americans will "succeed" in Raqqah, probably with the ISIS fighters fleeing. Probably, the 3-5,000 number above has been inflated to make either the success or failure look better.

We now go to U.S. media to see what they are saying on behalf of the Americans. With all other media read thus far saying that ISIS is forbidding civilians to flee the cities now slated for invasion, CNN says the very opposite in its headline, "ISIS lets Raqqa residents flee city as offensive waged to north." According to who? It comes as such a shock to me that I'm seeing these released people as ISIS fighters and their families. "ISIS has let some residents of its so-called capital flee to the surrounding countryside as a U.S.-backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab forces pushes forward with an offensive to the north of Raqqa, one resident and an activist group tell CNN." Uh, oh, a single resident reports this thing, but CNN ignores all the other media telling that ISIS is holding hostages as human shields???

The monitoring group also reported that over the past few days, coalition aircraft have been dropping leaflets over the northern suburbs of the city, asking civilians for the first time to leave the areas controlled by ISIS. "This is the time you have been waiting for. It is time to leave Raqqa," a report on the Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently website says. However, it appears the initial operation will be limited in scope.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/middleeast/isis-offensive-raqqa/

We get it. Leaflets are dropped, and people are expected to leave by certain avenues, and when they leave, the ISIS fighters go with them. The U.S. probably arranged to monitor the roads taken by the escapees; note that leaflets were dropped on the northern side of the city, the one closest to Turkey.

The Los Angeles Times reports (May 1, 2016), without blushing, that ISIS has been weakened due to U.S. activities, giving zero credit to the Syrian-Russian axis: "American airstrikes and efforts on the ground have taken a visible toll on the terrorist group. Its territory has shrunk, its finances are a mess, its recruitment numbers are down. U.S. Special Forces are training Syrian rebels with the aim of capturing Islamic State's capital of Raqqah -- maybe even before Obama leaves office." The fact is, the U.S; did nothing fast so that ISIS was allowed to dig-in in every city that they controlled. ISIS leaders were thus able to learn the ropes of controlling the city masses, making it much more costly to eradicate the rats now. In my opinion, the Omericans are the bigger rats, but the LA Times might go bankrupt tomorrow if it were to send that message today.

Dumb Iraqis, manipulated by the American rats. "You're not ready for Mosul; you're not ready for Mosul; you're not ready for Mosul; you're not ready for Mosul; you're not ready for Mosul... Say it enough, and the Iraqis will start to believe it. But if the Russians offer to help the Iraqis in Mosul, suddenly, the Iraqis will be ready, according to the Americans. Hypocrites! Liars! Scums! The reason that the Kurds are now ready for Raqqah is because the Russians were open to doing it with the Kurds. American scums! They are hoping never to attack ISIS while claiming to be anti-ISIS. Filthy rats, they lie to their own soldiers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/as-fallujah-battle-gets-underway-us-commander-warns-of-risk-from-locals/2016/05/28/ab1ee6fa-24de-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae_story.html

Until the Americans admit to the world that their purpose in Syria is to see a pro-American regime, they are playing the hypocrite. And while they need to admit that they are willing to see 100s of 1000s of Syrians die in order to achieve this goal, they obviously cannot admit it because they would expose themselves as utter scum. And that's what they are. Obviously. They are scum not admitting it. They are scum posing as angels in love with Syrians. And this is what they tell their soldiers, lying to them in order to have them fight heartily for the mere scums that they know themselves to be. There is no one who knows the demonics of the Syria project more than Obama. He is therefore the chief demon.

What happens if the Americans supply an escape route for ISIS in Falluja? It's not good for them at all, because the Iraqi's will then have a clean victory, and see themselves as ready to fight ISIS in Mosul. In fact, they had such a victory recently against ISIS that caused them to feel ready for Mosul. But the scums insisted that Iraqis weren't ready for it. Should we be predicting a fight in Falluja rather than a ISIS flight out of the city? One possibility is that the U.S. convinced the Iraqi's to go into Falluja instead so that its ISIS fighters would relocate in Mosul.

Here's from an article on May 30 telling that Iraqis are firing toward Falluja, capturing a police station: "On Monday, army units were 'steadily advancing' to Falluja's southern outskirts under air cover from a U.S.-led coalition helping to fight against the militants, according to a military statement read out on state TV." Why the south of the city? Isn't that moronic? When the ISIS fighters escape, they will go north under this arrangement. Shouldn't the Iraqis attack from the north, cutting off escape routes into SunniLand? Perhaps there's a logical explanation, and perhaps it's because the Americans have them bewitched into doing moronic things.

According to the Russians whom claim to have an email sent to Hillary's State Department, even Google was involved in supporting Syrian terrorists. Keep in mind here that Al-Jazeera is owned by the royal family of Qatar, an anti-Assad country seeking Assad's downfall:

Google and Al-Jazeera interfered in the Syrian events and collaborated with each other in an attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad.

According to an email from the head of "Google Ideas" Jared Cohen, received by the US State Department in 2012, the company was trying to support insurgents by urging representatives of Syrian power structures to take the side of the opposition.

"Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria," Cohen wrote in the e-mail.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160529/1040452420/hillary-secrets.html

The article doesn't comment further, but the reality is very apparent. Google supplied Al-Jazeera (anti-American company) the technical means to spread the State Department's (or Obama's) message in Syria on behalf of the war against Assad. Nasty, isn't it? And Hillary was in charge of the State Department at the time, who now wants to be the next president. Question: why would Google be involved in such a thing as the Syrian coup? Because, it's a spy tool to begin with, sharing data with American Intelligence. Google, such a joke, is doing things it wouldn't admit publicly, because it knows it's doing wrong. Ditto for Obama and Hillary, the CIA, the FBI, and the military. Desperadoes, condemning themselves under God's judgment merely for to get a little slice of pie in Syria. Shame. Can't America do something better with its foreign policy? Is this the best it's got? Where's the glory?

Lest you think that I'm pro-Russian or something due to hammering the U.S. recently, let's get this straight. Russia sees no problem having a friendship with Iran, the one that openly declares death to Israel. There is something drastically wrong with Russia, in other words. It's not right with God. The other thing wrong with Russia is that it has Americanized liberals in the development, as does Iran and other Muslim countries. This is the anti-Christ spirit.

Here's a headline this week: "Syrian Lawmaker Calls on Kurds to Ally With Russia Instead of Relying on US". It could find traction. He's a Kurd himself.

Talk about liars: "Turkish and US-led coalition airstrikes killed 104 Islamic State militants in retaliation for the latest attack on a Turkish border province, Turkish media reported on Saturday, citing military sources." Reuters has the nerve to publish this, as if it doesn't know that Turkey is combating its known reputation for weaponizing the ISIS' of Syria. Give us a break with your garbage, Reuters.

Turkey is claiming to wish for a Turkey-U.S. partnership against Raqqah, so long as the Americans stop partnering with the Syrian Kurds. The situation has become intolerable for Turkey. "'Wearing YPG [Kurdish] insignia takes things a step further. It says in effect not only that the United States finds the YPG useful in fighting against {Daesh} in Syria but that it identifies with YPG goals generally,' Paul R. Pillar wrote for the National Interest." But I think the Americans wore the Kurd badges for to take Kurds as far from the Russians as possible at this time. After stating that this was a normal practice used to build rapport with a particular group: "Finally, US defense officials essentially backtracked on their earlier statements, saying that the move was unauthorized and all US troops taking part in Washington's anti-Daesh operation should remove all YPG insignias from their uniforms." This is correct. The U.S. first of all made statements to the effect that it was authorized, and, finding this to be more troublesome than helpful, changed its story. Why should we believe anything this fat rat says? What message did the final statement / backdown send the Kurds? 1) That the U.S. is ashamed, on an international level, to be sharing some oneness with Kurds. 2) That they care more for what Turkey, their enemy, thinks.

Some are saying that Turkey badly wants parts of northern Syria, which is why a US-Turkey alliance there would look bad on the international stage. But I don't take Turkey's offers to fight ISIS seriously. To me, they are like false propaganda. While one can't trust official reports in war, I tend to think that the Russians would not lie when claiming openly that Turkey is sponsoring ISIS. It's a major accusation that would spoil Russian credibility if all other players knew this to be untrue. Losing credibility is something Russia needs to stay away from at this critical time. I've not read anything from the U.S. in denial of this accusation. An open denial would show the Russians that the Americans are willing to lie on an international stage. The Russians already know this, but aggravating it doesn't serve the U.S. well. Besides, if the U.S. denies it, it causes Russia to seek and expose further evidence.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Kurds, emboldened by the U.S.-Kurd alliance, "launched an offensive to retake areas east of Mosul, the Islamic State's main hub in the country, a statement said." This appeared late this week. I wonder how the Americans are going to stop these particular Kurds. Will the latter keep ISIS fighters in Falluja from entering Mosul? Isn't this why these Kurds made this decision at this time, to apply further pressure on ISIS? Kurdpress has a headline, "U.S. forces participate in Peshmerga operation against IS: report". This is the Mosul operation above. It can make it sound as though the Americans spearheaded the invasion, but one needs to be open to another scenario, one where the Kurds decided the operation initially, but where the Americans stepped in to do damage control, or to swing the agenda to some fruitless end. The Kurd fighters are on the east side of Mosul, which can't interfere with ISIS movements between Mosul and Raqqah. Why aren't the Kurds on the west and south of Mosul instead, where they can guard / monitor roads to Raqqah? Shouldn't the U.S. have arranged it that way?

If the U.S. plan now is to get some of Mosul's fighters to Raqqah, it will increase emphasis on the Syria theater, allowing the Russians to get more-seriously involved. That's what's happening. The Russians must understand what this emphasis on Raqqah is. I expect a Russian move in opposition to the U.S. interests in this regard.

It gets worse for the wayward rat: "US commandos are on the front lines in Syria in a new push toward the Islamic State's de facto capital in Raqqa, but in Iraq it is an entirely different story: Iran, not the United States, has become the face of an operation to retake the jihadi stronghold of Fallujah from the militant group. On the outskirts of Fallujah, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, police officers and Shiite militiamen backed by Iran are preparing for an assault on the Sunni city, raising fears of a sectarian bloodbath." Whose ultimate fault is this? Shouldn't the wayward rat leave the Middle East? It wants peace between the sectarian groups, as long as Iraq and Syria are under pro-American governments. Otherwise, the rats stir war in hopes of achieving their dismally-small piece of pie. Go home, stupids. You have a lot of blood on your whiskers. Even if you get the piece of pie, the Muslims will whittle it down to a granule of stale crust.
http://www.aina.org/news/20160529192612.htm

The article above is written by so-called Assyrians. This is the term they use for themselves. Personally, I don't think they are true Assyrians, but I don't know how it came about that they chose to use this term. They are Orthodox "Christians" crying out, mainly in vain, for world assistance against their Muslim aggressors. They now inhabit the ancient lands of Assyria, but may not have been there since the ancient Assyrians.

Here's an article from the last day of this week: "A Shiite militia group uncovered a system of tunnels used by Daesh terrorists near the city of Fallujah in Iraq...'Tunnels begin out of city [suburbs] and go in the direction of the city center.'..." If they were not permitted to be in these cities long enough to dig their escape routes, they could have been conquered a year ago.
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160530/1040476990/daesh-tunnels-fallujah.html

Meanwhile, there is ISIS in Aleppo. The Syrians are in command of attacking there. Within weeks, we'll know how great or small ISIS resistance will be. Citizens of Raqqah are saying that ISIS is digging-in to stay, not preparing to flee. If the Kurds succeed in Raqqah, the Americans will expect them to fight Assad. At that point, if it happens at all, the Russians will need to decide how much to support the Kurds while offending Assad. Disagreements between the Kurds and Assad, with Russia in a hard place to take sides, explain why the Americans were able to take the lead in Raqqah, but, the problem is, they chose to get involved. They chose to stick their nose in, to block the Assad-Russia alliance from using the Kurds themselves. When rats get involved, things start to stink, and they go rotten. "The Syrian city of Raqqa will become a part of the Federal Democratic System of Rojava and Northern Syria following its liberation from Daesh terrorists, a representative of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) in Iraqi Kurdistan, Gharib Hassou, said Thursday...He noted that the Syrian army was not taking part in the offensive to retake Raqqa." Did the Americans put that into his head? Did the Americans promise the Kurds, with a wink, their own part of Syria when this is over? Are the Kurds delusional? Raqqah is now a Sunni city with or without ISIS; it doesn't want the Kurds ruling it.

Let's assume that Kurds end up taking Raqqah and its environs, the old Carchemish theater. Later, the anti-Christ comes in to take it away from them, and goes into Iraq to become its "king." This can explain Isaiah 14's Medes (i.e. the Kurds) attacking the anti-Christ a few years later.

From Kurdpress: "A member of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Movement Leading Council warned about Russian support to Kurds in Syria and said the support is not real...The Syrian Kurdish prominent politician added that they are receiving diplomatic supports from Russia but it is the international anti-IS coalition that delivers real and practical support to the Kurds in Syria." The bottom line is that Russians cannot deliver Syrian Kurds their own autonomy due to the need for Putin to stay close to Assad. The Americans are more attractive in that regard, but uselessly so for as long as Assad is in power. Will the Russia-Assad axis attack the Kurds in Raqqah once taken?

Late this week:

The U.S.-led consortium leading the development of Israel's offshore gas reserves has announced its first sales deal since a reworked agreement on a key offshore field was given the go-ahead.

The consortium, led by U.S. firm Noble Energy, Sunday announced a $3-billion deal to supply 13 billion cubic metres of natural gas from the Leviathan field to a power plant in southern Israel over the next 18 years.

...Leviathan is the largest of Israel's offshore gas fields, with enough gas to turn the previously resource-poor country into a significant exporter.

Key potential markets are Turkey and Egypt.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/210437-first-sale-for-newly-approved-israeli-gas-project

Amazing. Israel now has a whopper of a fossil-fuel industry. All the more reason for its enemies to conquer it.

---