George Soros gave Ivanka's husband's business a $250 million credit line in 2015 per WSJ. Soros is also an investor in Jared's business.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

US government spent $12 billion+ backing Islamic terrorists in Syria 2014-2017, per Obama Syria Ambassador. This doesn’t include $1 billion/yr for CIA or funds spent prior to 2014. US taxpayers have financed set up of local governments within Syria that report to Islamic terrorists rather than Syrian government-Norton, The Gray Zone, 2/9/2018…(If Trump cares about the US as he says he does, he has two choices: get US out of Syria today or resign)

“The US government spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, former [Obama] ambassador [to Syria] Robert Ford disclosed in a [Feb. 2018] House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.” This doesn’t include monies spent prior to 2014, nor the estimated $1 billion a year the CIA spends in Syria. US tax dollars were not allowed to aid all Syrians. In its usual genocidal fashion, the US only allowed aid to areas held by Islamic terrorists, forbidding “humanitarian aid” to areas held by the Syrian government.
 
 
[Image, 12/30/2018, “US flag flies in Syria’s Manbij despite pullout notice,” AFP, Delil Souleiman] 

2/9/2018, “US Ambassador Confirms Billions Spent on Regime Change in Syria, Debunking ‘Obama Did Nothing’ Myth,” The Gray Zone, Ben Norton 

“The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the [Obama] former U.S. ambassador to the country [2014-2017]. 

This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011. 

This striking figure provides a further glimpse of the exorbitant sums of money the U.S. spent trying to topple the government in Damascus. It also bluntly contradicts claims by Syrian opposition supporters that the former administration of President Barack Obama “did nothing” in Syria, or that it supposedly did not seek regime change fervently enough. 

Former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford disclosed this information in written testimony prepared for a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 6 [2018]. 

“The cost of US military operations in Syria between FY 2014 and the end of FY 2017 was between $3 and $4 billion,” Ford said. “In addition to the cost of those military operations, the FY 2017 budget request included $430 [million] to build local security forces and the FY 2018 request was for $500 million.”

 
[Map, 6/5/2018, Map of Syria highlighting strategic northern town of Manbij (AFP Photo/afp)] 

The former ambassador did not distinguish what proportion of this spending went specifically to fighting ISIS. Although he made clear that some of it was directed at the Syrian opposition. 

Ford also reported that the U.S. spent $7.7 billion in [so-called] humanitarian aid efforts in Syria in those same four years. This figure cannot be excluded from the overall cost of the U.S. regime change mission, however, because U.S. spending on humanitarian aid in Syria has often been explicitly politicized. [US helps only Islamic terrorist-held areas, explicitly refuses to help people in legitimate Syria government territory. Therefore, by definition, US aid is not “humanitarian."]  

The U.S. State Department, USAID, and other government agencies have refused to provide humanitarian aid to government-held areas in Syria and have instead expressly used the funding to bankroll the political, civil, and health infrastructure of [Islamic terrorist] rebel-held territory, including areas that are governed by Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra. The Guardian exposed how similar aid initiatives by the British government financed the activities of al-Nusra and other extremist Salafi-jihadist militias. 

Ford acknowledged in his [2018] testimony that U.S. humanitarian aid to Syria was heavily politicized, explaining:
“The U.S. also has deployed a small civilian team into Syria charged with initial reconstruction and building new local governance or improving on existing local governance. If it sounds like nation-building, it is but on a smaller scale. USAID and other civilian agencies have provided $875 million in non-lethal and stabilization aid to [Al Qaeda groups] opposition-controlled areas in Syria since FY 2012. Last year [2017] alone the US provided about $200 million.” 

This politicized humanitarian funding has been part of a concerted effort to undermine the Syrian government’s control over Syrian territory by creating independent political administrations, civil society organizations, health institutions, and infrastructure that are outside of its control, effectively establishing de facto autonomous governments that survive on U.S. funding. 

In fact, Ford went so far in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing as to condemn United Nations humanitarian aid programs, claiming they are “basically subsidizing [the sovereign nation’s president] Assad” by supporting civilians in government-held territory (which comprises the vast majority of the country). 

“If you add all these numbers up, US military and civilian costs in Syria over the past four years are at least $12 billion,” Ford said in his written congressional testimony. “That’s a lot of money. And it’s not clear when those outlays will stop.” 

Billions Spent on CIA Syria Operations 

Joshua Landis, a leading academic expert on Syria, speculated that the $12 billion figure may not include spending by the Central Intelligence Agency. 

The New York Times noted that the CIA program in Syria was “one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train [Islamic terrorist] rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the 1980s,” which gave birth to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 

The CIA likely spent billions of dollars pursuing regime change in Syria, although exact estimates vary. 

In June 2015, The Washington Post reported that CIA covert operations in Syria had “a budget approaching $1 billion a year.” The report continued: “At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.” 

U.S. officials told the Post these CIA efforts were “part of a broader, multibillion-dollar effort involving Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to bolster” the [Islamic terrorist] Syrian opposition. 

A January 2016 report by The New York Times likewise revealed that Saudi Arabia helped finance U.S. operations in Syria, and “estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion dollars.” Significant funding also came from Qatar, Jordan, and Turkey. 

By August 2017, however, the Times had significantly downplayed the price of the operations at “more than $1 billion over the life of the program” — even while acknowledging that it was “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the C.I.A.” 

The ‘Obama Did Nothing in Syria’ Myth
 

Robert Ford’s disclosure constitutes the latest admission by a government official that the [US taxpayer] cost of U.S. operations in the Syrian war have exceeded 11 digits, extending into the tens of billions. 

It also stands in stark contrast to the claims of pro-opposition advocates and pundits, who have breathlessly insisted that the administration of President Barack Obama was not serious about overthrowing the government of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. 

Media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has repeatedly documented the claims that “Obama did nothing” in Syria, a lie that has persistently been spread by some of the world’s most high-profile journalists. 

The editorial boards of leading newspapers and senior politicians in the U.S. and Europe have contributed to this popular myth. Obama’s liberal and conservative critics alike have excoriated him for supposedly “shrugging” and “sitting idly by.” 

The lie that the U.S. “did not intervene in Syria” has been repeated by figures from Senator John McCain to New York Times reporters and beyond. 

Congressional Syria Regime Change Hearing 

Robert S. Ford is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, an influential Washington, D.C.-based think tank that is funded largely by the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
MEI largely acts as a vehicle for Emirati influence in the U.S.

Leaked emails show the think tank has been used to give an appearance of independence to UAE-backed foreign trips with U.S. diplomats. 

The testimony in which former ambassador Robert Ford revealed this information was prepared for the House Foreign Affairs Committee [2018] hearing “Syria: Which Way Forward?”, which also featured some of Ford’s extremely hawkish colleagues at MEI. 

MEI senior fellow Charles Lister, who has for years lobbied for the United States to violently overthrow the Syrian government, while whitewashing the Salafi-jihadist rebels in Syria, also prepared written testimony in which he lamented the failure of the regime change program and proposed new ways to bring down Assad. 

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a hardline neoconservative who serves as chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, opened the hearing stating that “many people were encouraged by Secretary Tillerson’s recent speech” in which he called for a “Syria under post-Assad leadership.” 

In this speech in January [2018], Tillerson confirmed that U.S. troops will remain in Syria indefinitely, even after ISIS is defeated. He also reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to regime change, and called on the international community to economically undermine [millions of innocent Syrian citizens] Damascus by refusing to fund reconstruction efforts. 

Ford and Lister joined Ros-Lehtinen in praising Tillerson for outlining these goals, but lamented that specific actions were not proposed by the administration to bring them to fruition. 

How exactly the U.S. is going to bring about regime change in Damascus at this point remains unclear. In his prepared testimony, Ford conceded that the “Syrian and Iranian governments, and Russia, all want us out of Syria.”” 

………………………………….. 

Added: US elites have long partnered with Islamic terrorists: 

Jan. 2016, “A Special Relationship: The United States is teaming up with Al Qaeda, again, Harpers.org, Andrew Cockburn 

………………………………………………….. 

Added: 3/14/2013, “Why We Shouldn’t Be Arming Syria’s Rebels,” Huffington Post UK, Charles Shoebridge 

Those advocating arming [Islamist terrorists in Syria] also assume that, because rebels are fighting a dictator, the [Islamist] rebels must themselves support democracy. While opposition leaders outside Syria speak of inclusive democracy, gender equality and human rights, such concepts are largely alien to the Islamist fighters dominating Syria’s [so-called] rebels, the most influential of whom are groups such as the al Qaeda linked al Nusra Front. Rather, they aim to replace Syria Shia with Sunni power….Many have good reason to detest the Assad government. But this is no reason to provide weapons to those with little regard for democracy and human rightswhich for the true interests of Syria’s people and the West may make matters very much worse.”
…………………………………………….. 

Added: The US wasn’t invited into Syria. In 2011, US said Syrian Pres. Assad “had to go.” Since at least 2012 US taxpayers have been forced to pay for weapons to arm Islamic terrorists, the so-called “opposition,” to carry out bloody regime change in Syria: 

June 21, 2012, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition [Islamic terrorists],” NY Times, Eric Schmitt: 

…………………………………. 

Added: US narrative about Iran omits that Iran’s primary motivation for nuclear weapons is defensive. Iran is Shia, a minority in the Muslim world, most of which is Sunni. Iran knows that US prefers Sunnis: 10/20/2011, “The Lost Decade, Angelo M. Codevilla, Claremont.org 

subhead, “From Bad to Worse:” “The Iranians-not just the regime-want nukes because they are the only Shia state in the Sunni-dominated Muslim world, and because they want to further the interests of Shia populations in Sunni dominated states. They want nukes all the more because they know that the U.S. government takes sides against the Shia in all possible situations.”…(4th parag.) 

subhead, “Iraq’s Legacy:” “The [US] occupation’s practical political purpose was not to leave Iraq to its Shia majority and Kurdish separatists, but rather to “stabilize” (read, to preserve) the role of its ruling Sunni minority.…The 2007-08 “surge” of U.S. troops…protected Sunni enclaves....By the time our troops withdrew…the Shia ruled from north of Baghdad to the Persian Gulf, the Sunni enclaves were well armed, and all Iraqi sides were convinced that the next round of struggle would yield better results for them. Disrespect for America may be the occupation’s most harmful international legacy. 

Iraq’s legacy in America is worse. The occupation habituated the U.S. armed forces to regard it as normal to bleed without prospect of victory. Officers who commanded their troops to operate in replenished minefields, and who enforced “rules of engagement” that make troops vulnerable to un-uniformed enemies until these took action.”…

…………………………….




...............

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Globalization and endless wars render voters and elections meaningless. For example, much more CO2 is created by globalization and endless wars than would be removed by banning all cars in Europe, thus neutering the Green Party and its voters-Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire

5/28/19, “Analysis of the European Parliamentary elections,” Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire 

“The results of the European Parliamentary elections do not correspond in any way to what was expected – including by this writer…. 

5— In Germany and France, the substitution of the goals of the « civil society » for political questions 

The Anglo-Saxon expression « civil society » indicates associations which, because of their status, are not associated with politics, but defend other causes. This is precisely the case of environmental questions, which are often transnational, but always subordinate to political considerations. For example, even if we were to get rid of all the cars and trucks in the Union, the decrease of Co2 would be minimal compared with the quantity produced by the ships and aircraft necessary for economic globalisation. Or again, even if we were to protect, all the species which are becoming extinct, not only in the Union, but all over the world, this would not preserve the biodiversity destroyed by war. Incidentally, in a war situation, all environmental regulations would be forgotten. The expansion of the Green Party in Germany (20%) and in France (13%), therefore translates the impotence of voters in political matters. Since we can not act against imperialism and economic globalisation, let’s make ourselves useful in other ways.

The powers are preparing for a new Cold War.”




................

Day after Trump says no more troops to Mid East, Pentagon orders more troops to Mid East in addition to 60,000+ already there-The Atlantic…(It’s now clear Pres. Trump is a coward, complete opposite of Candidate Trump, and that he can't or won’t save us from the US military dictatorship perpetrating global mass murder and starvation)

Iran has had every right to bomb the US since 2010 when Strongman Obama destroyed Iran’s nuclear facility via Stuxnet cyber attack:It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”…6/1/2012, “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran, NY Times, David E. Sanger…“Stuxnet, a computer worm that hit and may have severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, is the type of cyberweapon that could broadly harm the United States, undermining both society and government ability to defend the nation, says a strongly worded report to Congress.”…12/15/2010,Stuxnet ‘virus’ could be altered to attack US facilities, report warns," CSMonitor.com,Mark Clayton 
……………………….. 

May 24, 2019,Trump Wants to Leave the Middle East. He’s Not Getting His Wish.The Atlantic, Kathy Gilsinan 

“The new deployment is a small fraction of the tens of thousands of troops already there. [Why are 60,000-80,000 troops there when they’re desperately needed on the US southern border?] But it’s designed to send a signal to Iran.”


Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo surrounded by reporters
Image: “Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, James Lawler Duggan/Reuters
......
“President Donald Trump is learning, like two presidents before him, that wanting to get out of the Middle East isn’t enough to make it happen.


On Friday the Pentagon announced that it would send 1,500 troops to the region in what officials described as a “force protection” measure [where are troops at US border as a “force protection” measure?] because of what they’ve called increased Iranian threats, including to American troops. [Why are “American troops” there to being with?] The United States currently has thousands of troops in Iraq and Syria, in many cases in close proximity to Iranian-backed militias [who were invited there as an ally], with whom they’ve maintained a de facto truce as both focused on [appearing to be] fighting ISIS. 


Speaking to reporters on Friday, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Katie Wheelbarger said that the new troops would not be going to Iraq and Syria, but would augment the U.S. presence in the region. The U.S. currently maintains between 60,000 and 80,000 troops, both at sea and on land bases, in the Middle East. The extra troops, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said in a statement, are a “prudent defensive measure and intended to reduce the possibility of future hostilities.” 

At the briefing Friday, Vice Admiral Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff, for the first time attributed recent attacks on foreign oil tankers to the Iranians, and confirmed earlier media reports that U.S. officials were concerned when they observed what they said were Iranian missiles being moved on small boats. 
 
The Defense Department made the announcement just a day after President Trump, while declaring Iran “a very dangerous player” and “a nation of terror,” said he did not think such a deployment would be needed. “I don’t think we’re going to need them, I really don’t,” he said, though he said he’d send troops if necessary. And so he will, notwithstanding his oft-repeated desire to avoid war and his vocal distaste for foreign entanglements. Just Thursday he remarked of the Middle East, “I don’t think we ever should have been there, okay? I inherited this mess.” Yet he has also twice launched strikes against the Syrian regime in response to chemical-weapons attacks, reinforced the United States position in Afghanistan, and continued drone strikes against militants in Somalia and Yemen.”… 
 
[Ed. note: Since Trump’s words are obviously meaningless, why not write some articles urging him to resign for being useless?] 

 
(continuing): “With the[alleged] territorial defeat of ISIS, which has coincided with the Trump administration’s escalating economic-pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic [of Iran? There are multiple “Islamic Republics.”], the incentives for cooperation between the U.S. and Iranian-backed proxies in the Middle East appear to be fraying. Earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton, citing unspecified intelligence of Iranian threats, announced that the U.S. would send a carrier strike group to the region. The Pentagon followed that up with an announcement that it would send antimissile batteries—though these were only a partial replacement of military assets withdrawn from the region weeks before. On Friday, Gilday cited “multiple credible reports” that he said showed Iranian proxy groups planning to attack U.S. forces. [“US forces?” Why are “US forces” sitting there to begin with when they’re desperately needed on the US border? Answer: Because the US is a failed state, defined as one which can’t or won’t defend its borders.]
 
Pentagon officials have characterized the new deployments as aimed at force protection and deterrence-essentially, defensive moves. The administration’s critics, and particularly Democrats in Congress who have been briefed on the intelligence, don’t buy this explanation; they have repeatedly cited the risks of provoking Iran into a possible [multi-billion dollar US taxpayer funded] military confrontation.“I’m gravely concerned that we’ve got folks who are encouraging or tolerating his bumbling forward into a major deployment into the Middle East without a clear strategy,” the Democratic senator Chris Coons said in a television interview earlier this week. A spokesman for Coons, who was briefed on the intelligence about Iranian threats earlier this week, told me in an email that he hadn’t seen much from the administration that he hadn’t seen in news reports.Administration allies such as [completely useless neocon] Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have voiced more alarm about what the intelligence shows. “There can be no doubt that we’ve seen serious, credible, and increased reporting of threats from Iran across the Middle East—whether [from] their own forces like the Revolutionary Guard corps or through their proxies like the rebel groups they support in places like Yemen, or paramilitary forces in Iraq,” he told Fox News.”…
……..
[Ed. note: Who gives a damn what neocon, sell out US Senators say on Fox News? US military should all return to the US and in any case have no business whatsoever being posted in Yemen or Iraq. The US has a wide open 2000 mile southern border and all we hear about is so-and-so might get close to the 80,000 US “troops” in the Middle East.] 
 
(continuing): “Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Shanahan insisted: “Our job is deterrence. This is not about [yet another multi-billion dollar bombing scam] war. We have a mission there in the Middle East: Freedom of navigation; counterterrorism in Syria [A massive lie–US creates and finances terrorism in Syria], and Iraq [who invited the US into Iraq?]; defeating al-Qaeda in Yemen [Another massive lie. US partners with Al Qaeda in the Middle East]; and the security of Israel and Jordan. [“Security?” What “security” do you provide in the US on the US border?] Wheelbarger and Gilday said repeatedly on Friday that the U.S. does not seek a military conflict with Iran. “It’s right to do all we can to ensure protection for U.S. forces. [“Protection for US forces?” Uninvited US “forces” are meddling in a foreign country and on top of that US taxpayers have to pay billions extra so no one will step on the toes of US “forces” occupying another country?] The one enemy actively attacking our forces, however, is ISIS”… 
 

[Ed. note: Please stop the lies. First, there are countless Islamic terror groups endlessly splintering and re-emerging with different names all over the Mid East and elsewhere. Second, to the various Islamic terror groups and fighters the issue is Sunni vs Shia, not democracy vs dictatorship. Eg., Sunnis want a Sunni dictator. Third, the US openly partners with Islamic terror groups, is fine with terrorism. US will partner with anyone, it’s only interested in endless unwinnable wars funded by enslaved US taxpayers.]


(continuing): “–including a suicide attack in Syria last week. Iran has not attacked U.S. forces since 2011,” a former senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue, told The Atlantic. [Did the “official” mention US 2010 Stuxnet attack on Iran, effectively bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities?]  “The aim should be to keep it that way, through a combination of deterrence and diplomacy. There does not seem to be much if any of the latter.”

……
The numbers announced Friday would not be sufficient to invade and occupy Iran, a proposition that, according to a New York Times report, would take vastly more than even a high-end proposal of 120,000 troops at one point apparently under discussion at the Pentagon. (Trump later called that number inaccurate and said that “if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.” [Pathetic. Trump obviously has no say in the matter]).
…….
As tensions have escalated, Iran has made threats of its own—including to increase its uranium enrichment. Speaking to reporters on background Friday morning, a senior administration official characterized the threats as an attempt to blackmail the Europeans, who have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal along with Iran after the U.S. departure last May, in an effort to try to get around American sanctions. [So what? The “senior administration official” should get a life, or at least some hobbies.]Iran and the U.S.’s allies [when do US taxpayers get to be one of these US “allies” we’re always hearing about?] are already locked in a low-grade war of sorts that’s playing out among their proxies and allies across the region [“The region?” Meanwhile the US “region,” twists slowly, slowly in the wind], so there is ample potential for existing confrontations to spiral even further.At the White House, there was notably no mention of a military solution. “If they are really interested in the well-being of the Iranian people, they have no viable path but come to the table, take the president’s offer of a negotiation,” the official said. 
 
Top Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have so far refused.“Pompeo makes sure that every time he talks about Iran, he insults me,” Zarif told Reuters. “Why should I even answer his phone call?” The administration official declined to say whether channels were open at lower levels—and the lack of any evident communication between the two foes has stoked worries that it will be difficult to de-escalate tensions. In the meantime, more troops are on the way. 
…………………… 
 
Added: Iran has long had just cause to attack the US as reports warned after US Stuxnet cyber attack on Iran nuclear facilities in 2010: CS Monitor, Dec. 2010, Dec. 2011, NY Times, June 2012. US should expect consequences: Stuxnet variant could attack the US, rendering it unable to protect itself said “little noticed” but “strongly worded” Dec. 2010 report from Congressional Research Service: 

12/15/2010,Stuxnet ‘virus’ could be altered to attack US facilities, report warns, CSMonitor.com, Mark Clayton 
 
“Stuxnet ‘virus,’ a cyberweapon aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, could be redirected to launch a broad attack on US basic services, such as water and power supplies, says a report to Congress.” 

Stuxnet, a computer worm that hit and may have severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, is the type of cyberweapon that could broadly harm the United States, undermining both society and government ability to defend the nation, says a strongly worded report to Congress. 

A successful broad-based attack on the US, using new variants of the Stuxnet weapon, could do enough widespread damage to critical infrastructure – including water, power, transportation, and other services – that it “threatens to cause harm to many activities deemed critical to the basic functioning of modern society,said the little-noticed report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Dec. 9. [2010] 

Terrorist groups, previously deemed not to have much independent ability to launch damaging cyberattacks, could potentially purchase or even rent a Stuxnet-based variant from organized crime groups to launch an infrastructure attack on the US, the report warns.”…
………………….
Added: Jan. 2011 article, US should expect consequences: Countries hostile to the United States may feel justified in launching their own attacks against US facilities, perhaps even using a modified Stuxnet code,” the Institute for Science and International Security in a Dec. 23, 2011 report: 
1/3/2011, Stuxnet attack on Iran nuclear program came about a year ago, report says,” CSMonitor.com, Mark Clayton 

“Stuxnet attack could result in harm to US interests in the future. 

Countries hostile to the United States may feel justified in launching their own attacks against US facilities, perhaps even using a modified Stuxnet code,” ISIS [Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Dec. 23 report,a little-noticed analysis“] concluded. “Such an attack could shut down large portions of national power grids or other critical infrastructure using malware designed to target critical components inside a major system, causing a national emergency.”“
……………………….
 

Added: “It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”… 

6/1/2012, “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran, NY Times, David E. Sanger  
Achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives….This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyber attack was used to effect physical destruction,” said former CIA chief Michael V. Hayden….It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”…
..............

Day after Trump says no more troops to Mid East, Pentagon orders more troops to Mid East in addition to 60,000+ already there-The Atlantic…(It’s now clear Pres. Trump is a coward, complete opposite of Candidate Trump, and that he can't or won’t save us from the US military dictatorship perpetrating global mass murder and starvation)

Iran has had every right to bomb the US since 2010 when Strongman Obama destroyed Iran’s nuclear facility via Stuxnet cyber attack:It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”…6/1/2012, “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran, NY Times, David E. Sanger…“Stuxnet, a computer worm that hit and may have severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, is the type of cyberweapon that could broadly harm the United States, undermining both society and government ability to defend the nation, says a strongly worded report to Congress.”…12/15/2010,Stuxnet ‘virus’ could be altered to attack US facilities, report warns," CSMonitor.com,Mark Clayton 
……………………….. 

May 24, 2019,Trump Wants to Leave the Middle East. He’s Not Getting His Wish.The Atlantic, Kathy Gilsinan 

“The new deployment is a small fraction of the tens of thousands of troops already there. [Why are 60,000-80,000 troops there when they’re desperately needed on the US southern border?] But it’s designed to send a signal to Iran.”


Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo surrounded by reporters
Image: “Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, James Lawler Duggan/Reuters
“President Donald Trump is learning, like two presidents before him, that wanting to get out of the Middle East isn’t enough to make it happen

On Friday the Pentagon announced that it would send 1,500 troops to the region in what officials described as a “force protection” measure [where are troops at US border as a “force protection” measure?] because of what they’ve called increased Iranian threats, including to American troops. [Why are “American troops” there to being with?] The United States currently has thousands of troops in Iraq and Syria, in many cases in close proximity to Iranian-backed militias [who were invited there as an ally], with whom they’ve maintained a de facto truce as both focused on [appearing to be] fighting ISIS. 
 
Speaking to reporters on Friday, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Katie Wheelbarger said that the new troops would not be going to Iraq and Syria, but would augment the U.S. presence in the region. The U.S. currently maintains between 60,000 and 80,000 troops, both at sea and on land bases, in the Middle East. The extra troops, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said in a statement, are a “prudent defensive measure and intended to reduce the possibility of future hostilities.”
 
At the briefing Friday, Vice Admiral Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff, for the first time attributed recent attacks on foreign oil tankers to the Iranians, and confirmed earlier media reports that U.S. officials were concerned when they observed what they said were Iranian missiles being moved on small boats. 
 
The Defense Department made the announcement just a day after President Trump, while declaring Iran “a very dangerous player” and “a nation of terror,” said he did not think such a deployment would be needed. “I don’t think we’re going to need them, I really don’t,” he said, though he said he’d send troops if necessary. And so he will, notwithstanding his oft-repeated desire to avoid war and his vocal distaste for foreign entanglements. Just Thursday he remarked of the Middle East, “I don’t think we ever should have been there, okay? I inherited this mess.” Yet he has also twice launched strikes against the Syrian regime in response to chemical-weapons attacks, reinforced the United States position in Afghanistan, and continued drone strikes against militants in Somalia and Yemen.”… 
 
[Ed. note: Since Trump’s words are obviously meaningless, why not write some articles urging him to resign for being useless 
 
(continuing): “With the[alleged] territorial defeat of ISIS, which has coincided with the Trump administration’s escalating economic-pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic [of Iran? There are multiple “Islamic Republics.”], the incentives for cooperation between the U.S. and Iranian-backed proxies in the Middle East appear to be fraying. Earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton, citing unspecified intelligence of Iranian threats, announced that the U.S. would send a carrier strike group to the region. The Pentagon followed that up with an announcement that it would send antimissile batteries—though these were only a partial replacement of military assets withdrawn from the region weeks before. On Friday, Gilday cited “multiple credible reports” that he said showed Iranian proxy groups planning to attack U.S. forces. [“US forces?” Why are “US forces” sitting there to begin with when they’re desperately needed on the US border? Answer: Because the US is a failed state, defined as one which can’t or won’t defend its borders.]
 
Pentagon officials have characterized the new deployments as aimed at force protection and deterrence-essentially, defensive moves. The administration’s critics, and particularly Democrats in Congress who have been briefed on the intelligence, don’t buy this explanation; they have repeatedly cited the risks of provoking Iran into a possible [multi-billion dollar US taxpayer funded] military confrontation.“I’m gravely concerned that we’ve got folks who are encouraging or tolerating his bumbling forward into a major deployment into the Middle East without a clear strategy,” the Democratic senator Chris Coons said in a television interview earlier this week. A spokesman for Coons, who was briefed on the intelligence about Iranian threats earlier this week, told me in an email that he hadn’t seen much from the administration that he hadn’t seen in news reports.Administration allies such as [completely useless neocon] Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have voiced more alarm about what the intelligence shows. “There can be no doubt that we’ve seen serious, credible, and increased reporting of threats from Iran across the Middle East—whether [from] their own forces like the Revolutionary Guard corps or through their proxies like the rebel groups they support in places like Yemen, or paramilitary forces in Iraq,” he told Fox News.”… 
 
[Ed. note: Who gives a damn what neocon, sell out US Senators say on Fox News? US military should all return to the US and in any case have no business whatsoever being posted in Yemen or Iraq. The US has a wide open 2000 mile southern border and all we hear about is so-and-so might get close to the 80,000 US “troops” in the Middle East.] 
 
(continuing): “Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Shanahan insisted: “Our job is deterrence. This is not about [yet another multi-billion dollar bombing scam] war. We have a mission there in the Middle East: Freedom of navigation; counterterrorism in Syria [A massive lie–US creates and finances terrorism in Syria], and Iraq [who invited the US into Iraq?]; defeating al-Qaeda in Yemen [Another massive lie. US partners with Al Qaeda in the Middle East]; and the security of Israel and Jordan. [“Security?” What “security” do you provide in the US on the US border?] Wheelbarger and Gilday said repeatedly on Friday that the U.S. does not seek a military conflict with Iran. “It’s right to do all we can to ensure protection for U.S. forces. [“Protection for US forces?” Uninvited US “forces” are meddling in a foreign country and on top of that US taxpayers have to pay billions extra so no one will step on the toes of US “forces” occupying another country?] The one enemy actively attacking our forces, however, is ISIS”… 
 
[Ed. note: Please stop the lies. First, there are countless Islamic terror groups endlessly splintering and re-emerging with different names all over the Mid East and elsewhere. Second, to the various Islamic terror groups and fighters the issue is Sunni vs Shia, not democracy vs dictatorship. Eg., Sunnis want a Sunni dictator. Third, the US openly partners with Islamic terror groups, is fine with terrorism. US will partner with anyone, it’s only interested in endless unwinnable wars funded by enslaved US taxpayers.]


(continuing): “–including a suicide attack in Syria last week. Iran has not attacked U.S. forces since 2011,” a former senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue, told The Atlantic. [Did the “official” mention US 2010 Stuxnet attack on Iran, effectively bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities?]  “The aim should be to keep it that way, through a combination of deterrence and diplomacy. There does not seem to be much if any of the latter.”

The numbers announced Friday would not be sufficient to invade and occupy Iran, a proposition that, according to a New York Times report, would take vastly more than even a high-end proposal of 120,000 troops at one point apparently under discussion at the Pentagon. (Trump later called that number inaccurate and said that “if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.” [Pathetic. Trump obviously has no say in the matter]).

As tensions have escalated, Iran has made threats of its own—including to increase its uranium enrichment. Speaking to reporters on background Friday morning, a senior administration official characterized the threats as an attempt to blackmail the Europeans, who have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal along with Iran after the U.S. departure last May, in an effort to try to get around American sanctions. [So what? The “senior administration official” should get a life, or at least some hobbies.]Iran and the U.S.’s allies [when do US taxpayers get to be one of these US “allies” we’re always hearing about?] are already locked in a low-grade war of sorts that’s playing out among their proxies and allies across the region [“The region?” Meanwhile the US “region,” twists slowly, slowly in the wind], so there is ample potential for existing confrontations to spiral even further.At the White House, there was notably no mention of a military solution. “If they are really interested in the well-being of the Iranian people, they have no viable path but come to the table, take the president’s offer of a negotiation,” the official said. 

Top Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have so far refused.“Pompeo makes sure that every time he talks about Iran, he insults me,” Zarif told Reuters. “Why should I even answer his phone call?” The administration official declined to say whether channels were open at lower levels—and the lack of any evident communication between the two foes has stoked worries that it will be difficult to de-escalate tensions. In the meantime, more troops are on the way. 


…………………… 
 
Added: Iran has long had just cause to attack the US as reports warned after US Stuxnet cyber attack on Iran nuclear facilities in 2010: CS Monitor, Dec. 2010, Dec. 2011, NY Times, June 2012. US should expect consequences: Stuxnet variant could attack the US, rendering it unable to protect itself said “little noticed” but “strongly worded” Dec. 2010 report from Congressional Research Service: 

12/15/2010,Stuxnet ‘virus’ could be altered to attack US facilities, report warns," CSMonitor.com, Mark Clayton 
 
“Stuxnet ‘virus,’ a cyberweapon aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities, could be redirected to launch a broad attack on US basic services, such as water and power supplies, says a report to Congress.” 

Stuxnet, a computer worm that hit and may have severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities, is the type of cyberweapon that could broadly harm the United States, undermining both society and government ability to defend the nation, says a strongly worded report to Congress. 

A successful broad-based attack on the US, using new variants of the Stuxnet weapon, could do enough widespread damage to critical infrastructure – including water, power, transportation, and other services – that it “threatens to cause harm to many activities deemed critical to the basic functioning of modern society,said the little-noticed report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Dec. 9. [2010] 

Terrorist groups, previously deemed not to have much independent ability to launch damaging cyberattacks, could potentially purchase or even rent a Stuxnet-based variant from organized crime groups to launch an infrastructure attack on the US, the report warns.”…
…………………. 
 
Added: Jan. 2011 article, US should expect consequences: Countries hostile to the United States may feel justified in launching their own attacks against US facilities, perhaps even using a modified Stuxnet code,” the Institute for Science and International Security in a Dec. 23, 2011 report: 
 
1/3/2011, Stuxnet attack on Iran nuclear program came about a year ago, report says,” CSMonitor.com, Mark Clayton 
“Stuxnet attack could result in harm to US interests in the future. 

Countries hostile to the United States may feel justified in launching their own attacks against US facilities, perhaps even using a modified Stuxnet code,” ISIS [Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), Dec. 23 report,a little-noticed analysis“] concluded. “Such an attack could shut down large portions of national power grids or other critical infrastructure using malware designed to target critical components inside a major system, causing a national emergency.”“
……………………….
 

Added: “It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”… 

6/1/2012, “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran," NY Times, David E. Sanger 

Achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives….This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyber attack was used to effect physical destruction,” said former CIA chief Michael V. Hayden….It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it [the US] becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.”…



 


...........


Monday, May 27, 2019

Memorial Day 2019: Trump has redefined US “boots on the ground” in Syria to include Islamic terrorists. In World War II US “boots on the ground” wore US uniforms, not Islamic head scarves. Further, US fought WWII because US was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Syria never attacked US, yet US illegally attacked, bombed and continues to fly its flag on Syrian soil



Images above: US soldiers then and now. Left: 1940s World War II Army Air Force soldier, my father, Ed Mullen, who fought because the US had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. (Photo with his Stearman biplane at end of this post). Right: Abu Mohammad al-Jolai, leader of Salafist jihadist militant group HTS in Syria, unvetted US “boots on the ground” in Syria, a country which hasn’t attacked the US nor is a threat to do so. As of 2019 jihadist group HTS has taken control of Syria’s Idlib province. Trump champions the group’s evidence-free complaints geared to incite more US taxpayer funded bombing. US says if you don’t back Al Qaeda groups in Syria you’re effectively a Putin stooge, believing “disinformation."… Per Wall St. Journal, 9/9/2018, Trump openly advocates for Islamic terrorists and their alleged complaints for all the world to see, threatens President of Syria with “massive” US taxpayer funded attack if Assad dares to clear 70,000 Islamic terrorists out of Idlib, Syria: “In a recent discussion about Syria, people familiar with the exchange said, President Trump threatened to conduct a massive attack against Mr. Assad if he carries out a massacre in Idlib, the northwestern province that has become the last refuge for more than three million people and as many as 70,000 [Islamic terrorists] opposition fighters that the [everyone in the world including the government of the sovereign nation of Syria] regime [knows to be] considers to be terrorists."…"U.S. Says Syria Plans Gas Attack in Rebel Stronghold,” Wall St. Journal, Dion Nissenbaum…3/14/2013, “Why We Shouldn’t Be Arming Syria’s Rebels,” Huffington Post UK, Charles Shoebridge

In fact, the US [Trump administration] communiqué endorses an accusation initially made by the group Hayat Tahrir al-Cham, [HTS] which is the current denomination of al-Qaeda in the Syrian region of Idlib.” 

“Most of the international community considers Tahrir al-Sham to be a terrorist organisation. The US embassy in Syria confirmed on May 2017 that HTS had been designated a terrorist organization in March 2017. The United States Ambassador to Syria stated that HTS is a merger and any group that merges into it becomes part of al-Qaeda’s Syrian network. and “the core of HTS is Nusra, a designated terrorist organization. This designation applies regardless of what name it uses or what groups merge into it.” Canada designated Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization on 23 May 2018. In August 2018, Turkey designated Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization….Commonly referred to as Tahrir al-Sham and abbreviated HTS, also known as al-Qaeda in Syriais an active Salafist jihadist militant group.” 

Above image on right of Islamic terrorist leader in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolai, via Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham,” Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism, itct.org.uk
……………………………

Added: 

12/30/2018, “US flag flies in Syria’s Manbij despite pullout notice,” AFP, Delil Souleiman

…………………………………………

Added: More on US jihadist “boots-on-the-ground” in Syria’s Al Qaeda controlled Idlib province: 

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham,” Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism, itct.org.uk 

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (Arabic: Ù‡ÙŠØ¦Ø© تحرير الشام‎) “Organization for the Liberation of the Levant” or “Levant Liberation Committee“), commonly referred to as Tahrir al-Sham and abbreviated HTS, also known as al-Qaeda in Syria, is an active Salafist jihadist militant group involved in the Syrian Civil War. The group was formed on 28 January 2017 as a merger between Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly al-Nusra Front), the Ansar al-Din Front, Jaysh al-Sunna, Liwa al-Haqq, and the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement. After the announcement, additional groups and individuals joined. The merged group is currently led by Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and former Ahrar al-Sham leaders, although the High Command consists of leaders from other groups. Many groups and individuals defected from Ahrar al-Sham, representing their more conservative and Salafist elements.

Currently, a number of analysts and media outlets still continue to refer to this group by its previous names, al-Nusra Front, or Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. The Ansar al-Din Front and Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement have since split off from Tahrir al-Sham.
Despite the merger, Tahrir al-Sham [HTS] has been accused of working as al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch on a covert level, and that many of the group’s senior figures, particularly Abu Jaber, held similarly extreme views. However, Tahrir al-Sham has officially denied being part of al-Qaeda [a transnational group] and said in a statement that the group is “an independent entity and not an extension of previous organizations or factions”. Additionally, some factions such as Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which was part of the merger, were once supported by the US….

 
[Image: 8/14/2018, Valued US partner, designated as terrorist group by US, Canada, Turkey and others:Graduation of new Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) members at a camp in the countryside of the northern Idlib province on August 14, 2018. (Photo by OMAR HAJ KADOUR / AFP) (Photo credit should read OMAR HAJ KADOUR/AFP/Getty Images)] 

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham traces its beginnings to the outset of the Syrian civil war and has remained a dangerous opposition force throughout the duration of the conflict. In May 2018, the group was added to the State Department’s existing designation of its predecessor, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Today, HTS can be thought of as a relatively localized Syrian terrorist organization, which retains a Salafi-jihadist ideology despite its public split from al-Qaeda in 2017. 

Jabhat al-Nusra, HTS’s precursor organization, was formed in Syria in 2011 as al-Qaeda’s affiliate within the opposition to the Assad regime. Nusra’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, [photo above] quickly established a capable organization, which secured its own donors in the Persian Gulf, collected revenue from taxation and asset seizures in the territories under its control, became adept at conducting insurgent attacks, and attracted a growing number of fighters. Jabhat al-Nusra maintained its ties to al-Qaeda even after al-Qaeda’s highly publicized split with the Islamic State, whose leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had been instrumental in Jabhat al-Nusra’s initial establishment. In late July 2016, however, al-Jolani announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the establishment of a new group, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. The group no longer had “external ties” with al-Qaeda, which many analysts suggested was an indication that while al-Jolani had formally severed its public relationship with al-Qaeda, the group would, in theory, continue to have a secret relationship with al-Qaeda and receive strategic and operational guidance. However, al-Jolani’s announcement was undertaken without consulting Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda, and created significant tension within the organization. 

HTS remains under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, but the group’s goals have shifted somewhat since announcing its independence from al-Qaeda. Though al-Jolani’s public statements do occasionally suggest broader aims (e.g., “With this spirit… we will not only reach Damascus, but, Allah permitting, Jerusalem will be awaiting our arrival”), the far-reaching “global caliphate” rhetoric favored by al-Qaeda is largely absent in HTS publications today. Instead, the group is locally focused, with its primary objective being the establishment of Islamic rule in Syria via “toppling the criminal [elected Assad] regime and expelling the Iranian militias.” 

To this end, al-Jolani has promoted a multi-pronged strategy.

The first stage, which HTS claimed to have completed in August 2018, was the removal of “Iranian militias and the militants from the towns of Fu’a and Kafriya, who were a threat to the entire region and an incentive for sectarian mobilization, and which the regime exploits to achieve its goals.” The second stage, which remains ongoing as of October 2018, is a campaign against the Islamic State and its allies in Syria, who al-Jolani has decried as “destabilizing.” The third stage is one of entrenchment, or “fortifying and defending” northern Syria in order to prevent the loss of further territory. Complementing this military strategy is a political one, in which HTS pursues unity amongst jihadist groups in Syria—referring to this unity as “one solid rank”—while maintaining a policy of “no negotiations” or reconciliation with the Assad regime. 

Most of the international community considers Tahrir al-Sham to be a terrorist organisation. The US embassy in Syria confirmed on May 2017 that HTS had been designated a terrorist organization in March 2017. The United States Ambassador to Syria stated that HTS is a merger and any group that merges into it becomes part of al-Qaeda’s Syrian network.” and “the core of HTS is Nusra, a designated terrorist organization. This designation applies regardless of what name it uses or what groups merge into it.” 

Canada designated Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization on 23 May 2018. 

In August 2018, Turkey designated Tahrir al-Sham as a terrorist organization. 

Moving forward, HTS’s future is uncertain. Turkey has pressured the group to dissolve and join a larger Turkish-backed opposition coalition, though HTS leaders have remarked that “matters relating to the organizational structure of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham are non-negotiable.” The group also faces an assault by the [elected government of] Syrian regime and its allies, including Russia, in Idlib. Finally, HTS has numerous competitors among the Syrian opposition, including from the National Liberation Front, which includes groups like Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Ahrar, and Suqour al-Sham.”
………………………………

Added: 

8/25/2018, America’s ‘Boots-On-The-Ground’ Fighters in Syria are Al Qaeda and Kurds," Washington’s blog 

(This article deals with America’s boots-on-the-ground proxy-fighters against Syria. On 27 July 2018, this was supplemented by an article about America’s governmental allies against Syria: “America’s Allies Against Russia & Iran: Main U.S. allies are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Israel, & Nazis.”) 

As will be documented here, America’s troops in Syria are not there in order to fight, but to assist Kurdish separatists in the northeast, and to assist the Al Qaeda led-and-trained jihadist forces elsewhere in Syria (such as in the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus, and in parts of Aleppo, and especially in Idlib) to overthrow and replace Syria’s popular and democratically elected, strongly secular and anti-sectarian President, Bashar al-Assad. Occasionally, the U.S. Government also has even helped ISIS to take over and control parts of Syria, such as the city Deir Zor (or Deir Ezzor), which is Syria’s oil-producing capital. For example, on 17 September 2016, the U.S. bombed Syria’s army in Deir Zor so that the surrounding ISIS forces could (and did) rush in and take control there.”…
……………………………… 

Added: $12 billion US taxpayer dollars were spent on Syria 2014-2017, per Obama Ambassador to Syria 2011-2014, This doesn’t include monies spent prior to 2014, nor the estimated $1 billion a year the CIA spends there: 

2/9/2018, “The US government spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, former [Obama] ambassador [to Syria] Robert Ford disclosed in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.”…US Ambassador Confirms Billions Spent on Regime Change in Syria, Debunking ‘Obama Did Nothing’ Myth,” Ben Norton, thegrayzone.com
………………………………

Added: The US wasn’t invited into Syria. Since at least 2011 US has said Syrian Pres. Assad “had to go.” Since at least 2012 US taxpayers have been forced to pay for weapons to arm Islamic terrorists (the “opposition”) for bloody regime change in Syria: 

June 21, 2012, C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition [Islamic terrorists],” NY TimesEric Schmitt: 

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.”…
………………………………… 

Added: The Syrian government would be completely justified in bombing US cities and planting Syrian flags on US soil: 

12/30/2018, “US flag flies in Syria’s Manbij despite pullout notice," AFP, Delil Souleiman





























Map, 6/5/2018, “Map of Syria locating the strategic northern town of Manbij (AFP Photo/afp)”
…………………….. 

Added: 

Jan. 2016, A Special Relationship: The United States is teaming up with Al Qaeda, again,” Harpers.org, Andrew Cockburn
………………………… 

Added: More photos of World War II US soldier, my father, who fought in response to US being attacked at Pearl Harbor. You don’t need a relative who fought for the US in World War II to wonder why Americans today accept Al Qaeda terrorists as their “boots on the ground” in an unprovoked war on Syria. Syria didn’t attack the US, the US simply declared in 2011 that it wanted “regime change” in Syria, and US has been illegally bombing, occupying, and financing Islamic terrorist fighters there since at least 2012. US “regime changes” always leave much worse misery than existed originally. US elites won’t stop on their own. For this to stop, the US will have to end. Many countries have just cause to make that happen.
 

Above, Dad in 1940s practicing with his Stearman biplane.


Above, Dad in 1945 on Tinian Island in the Pacific, see map below


.............
 
........
Above, Dad in May 2012 at his New Jersey home. He died on August 24, 2017 a month before his 95th birthday. At the time he joined the Army, he was not a member of Al Qaeda. The only group he had ever joined was the Boy Scouts.





..................

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout and World War II Air Force pilot born in Brooklyn, finally settling in New Jersey.