Group items tagged

This article has a strong stench of cover story to hide the financing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (al Sham), known by the acronyms "ISIL" or "ISIS." The essence of the cover story is here: "'They had taken $36m from al-Nabuk alone [an area in the Qalamoun mountains west of Damascus]. The antiquities there are up to 8,000 years old,' the intelligence official said. 'Before this, the western officials had been asking us where they had gotten some of their money from, $50,000 here, or $20,000 there. It was peanuts. Now they know and we know. They had done this all themselves. *There was no state actor at all behind them, which we had long known.* They don't need one.'" To the contrary, it has been long known that financial backing for ISIL has been coming from the governments of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Command and control was by the House of Saud's former chief of intelligence,  Bandar Bush. Supply was via Turkey, with the active involvement of the U.S. State Dept. and CIA. A ratline had been run from Benghazi to Turkey to supply them with weapons formerly controlled by the Libyan government before Gadhafi was deposed.   But political pressure has been growing for the Obama Administration to get tough with the Gulf states and force them to stop funding and supplying both ISIL and al-Nusrah to bring the Syrian War to an end. Suddenly, we have an elaborate cover story absolving the Gulf States of guilt in funding ISIL. Over 160 captured thumb drives decrypted by the CIA, with a set of books detailing its funds, their sources, and a complete list of its commanders. All told, with the money supposedly seized from banks in Mosul, we have an ISIL with $2.375 billion in cash, enough to launch a fledgling ISIL national government in the portions of Syria and Iraq that it has captured.        So now those calling on Obama to crack down on the Gulf states to end their funding of ISIL are supposed to accept this story and walk awa

The article goes in depth into the plotting that led to the ISIL invasion of Iraq including U.S. leadership of ISIL, quoting a source that was there when the decision was made by neocon leadership to have ISIL invade Iraq.

I've read the brief. I don't think the implied partial repeal of the War Powers Resolution argument should fly. The relevant provision establishes a rule of interpretation of later statutes and the appropriations bills neither reject the rule of interpretation nor specifically provide authorization for use of military force. They just authorize funding. On the standing issue, I think the DoJ position is correct; the oath of office applies only to senior officers who make the decision to initiate a war. But DoJ may have opened the door to a more compelling standing argument by arguing that the war does not constitute a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity under international law. DoJ did not need to make that argument because Smith had not alleged in his complaint that he was being ordered to commit such crimes, but by doing so DoJ waives any argument that such issues are beyond the scope of Smith's standing and the evidence that the Iraq and Syrian wars are illegal under international law is, to say the least, strong.

One thing American citizens must stress in the looming fight over an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to battle ISIL (beyond opposing it) is that we must have no more open ended authorizations like the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs for al-Qaeda and Iraq. Those must be terminated and any new AUMF must have a sunset provision. A constitutionally-based sunset provision should grant no more than a two-year authorization. The Founding Fathers were not united on having a standing army, so the Constitution requires that the Army (and its derivative Air Force) be automatically terminated if not reauthorized every two years. That is why we go through the process of a Defense Reauthorization Bill every two years. In that light, It is difficult to argue that the nation's wars should be authorized to last more than two years. 

So the "mastermind" of the Paris attacks was a product of the U.S. war on Libya, not of ISIL. Why am I not surprised? 

Now why would the U.S. and European powers oppose military intervention against ISIL in Libya if ISIL is in fact this force of unmitigated evil we hear about so often in American politics? Or is it a matter of who actually controls ISIL?  

You have to wonder why it's taken so long for the first U.S. muilitary officer to take legal action to uphold his oath to protectt, defend, and preserve the Constitution. Every officeer in the U.S. military has to know that these undeclared wars without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional.  I expect the counter-argument to be that Congrees has authorized the war on ISIL by passing appropriations for the DoD Overseas Contingency Fund, which the President taps to pay for, inter alia, the war against ISIL. (But not a real war against ISIL, which the U.S. helped create and still supplies with weapons.) The real tragedies here are two-fold: [i] so many other officers did not do the same thing many years ago; and [ii] the lawsuit will be a career-ender for the only officer in the U.S. military with the courage to act to uphold his oath of office.  

If this article is correct, there's a realignment of GCC-U.S. relations well under way. But I'm skeptical about the Saudi rhetoric on combating terrorism. So far as I'm aware, Riyadh has taken no action to halt the flow of Saudi funding to ISIL and Al-Nusrah (which earlier this year announced their merger). And the Saudis are providing a base for the U.S. to train "moderate Syrian fighters" aka ISIL and Al-Nusrah. Meanwhile, the Saudi efforts to depress oil prices has been widely reported as resulting from a deal with the U.S. to cripple the economies of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela in exchange for the U.S. agreeing to target the Assad government in Syria before attacking ISIL and Al-Nusrah. 

Thierry Meysann makes the case that Sen. John McCain, working with  was the guiding force behind the Arab Spring, the overthrow of Qadaffi in Libya, and the invasion of Syria by mercenary Islamists, working with a Zionist but deliberately misnomered front group. Thierry goes on to show that McCain played a key role in the creation and deployment of ISIL.  

This would seem to be a major capitulation by the U.S. because there is now agreement that both ISIL and al-Nusrah will be targeted by both nations when fighting resumes. To date, the U.S. has attempted in negotiations to shield al-Nusrah (al-Qaeda in Syria), despite having voted for the U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates an end of any kind of assistance to al-Nusrah and calls for strong military action to defeat the group. But bear in mind that the U.S. and its allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel, direct both ISIL and al-Nusrah and provide them with funding, weapons, supplies, and intelligence. So the U.S. is almost without doubt playing a double game here.

A U.S.-U.K. propaganda front operating behind ISIL and al-Nusrah lines. See also: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/06/gallery-dramatic-rescue-man-with-kid-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d1fb87c3970c amd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k6hSS6xBTw&feature=youtu.be The U.S. State Department admits to providing $23 million to this group operating behind al-Nusrah and ISIL lines. 

Video includes a nice photo of John McCain posing with ISIL leadership that ISIL has been circulating to establish its credentials as U.S.-supported.  

Woh! Things definitely coming to an inflexion point in Syria and Iraq. This is a reprint from RT.com, the Russian video and web page news service. The hint of direct and overt military action by Russia and Iran should not be ignored. The U.S. is sandbagging for ISIL and al Nusiryah. 

If one were to attempt to write the most damning yet throughly referenced report on U.S. involvement with ISIL, this manuscript would make a very good first draft.  But probably unintentionally, the author gives less credit to Israel than it is due. At least twice (and I think more but would have to check), the Israeli Air Force has struck Syria, destroying Russian heavy weaponry, missiles capable of reaching Israel, being delivered to the Lebanonese Hezbollah in Syria. Hesbollah is fighting side-by-side with the Syrian government forces in Syria. So Israel has had a direct and overt hand in the Syrian war. 

Robert Parry lands another major scoop. But beware of government officials who leak government plans because they do not invariably speak the truth.  I am particularly wary of this report because Obama's planned arming and training of the "moderate Syrian opposition" was such a patent lie. The "moderate Syrian opposition" disappeared over two years ago as peaceful protesters were replaced by Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, and American-backed Salafist mercenaries took their place. Up until this article, there has been every appearance that the U.S. was about to become ISIL's Air Force in Syria. In other words, there has been a steady gushing of lies from the White House on fundamental issues of war and peace. In that light, I do not plan to accept this article as truth before I see much more confirmation that ISIL rather than the Assad government is the American target in Syria. We have a serial liar in the White House.

Of course those who follow this stuff already knew the answer when Treasury popped the question. The question Treasury hasn't asked yet is why the U.S. didn't bomb all those Toyotas when they convoyed out of Syria into Iraq for the opening of the ISIL war in Iraq? Out in the open desert, the U.S. surely was aware of that mass movement of vehicles.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... The U.S. and its allies continue to provide ISIL with mercenaries, funding, weapons, supplies, and leadership. Nice racket for the war industry.