ISIS or enslavement of mankind in "Egypt" reborn?

On June 29, 2014, ISIS, which does mean the Islamic STATE of Iraq and the Levant (Syria), declared itself to be a state--the Islamic State (caliphate) by removing the words "Iraq" and "Syria" (Levant, al-Sham) from its name. Otherwise, ISIS already declared to be a new state in the Middle East officially already on January 3, 2014.

On the occasion, ISIS declared that it no longer recognizes any borders between Iraq and Syria or a territory of these states. Many of ISIS flags are old al Qaeda flags. So, al Qaeda now has a state the size of which is comparable to the US state of Indiana.

The new state was also celebrated by execution of yet more Iraqi POWs.

It is also interesting to note that the declaration of the new state was delivered in Arabis and Russian with a heavy Chechen accent, in the latter case by  Оmar Ash-Shishani, effectively the ISIS commander in chief, who is a former special forces officer of Saakashvili's Georgina Army and a veteran of the Russian-Georgian War over South Ossetia in August of 2008. His speech in Russian is here in 5:00-8:30 of the video:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=744115342317891

A shorter version of the news together with other related news with English commentary:

In his speech, Omar Ash-Shishani says that ISIS is not only a state, but also a global enterprise that stretches from Europe to Indonesia. ISIS is recruiting its soldiers from everywhere. His position and use of Russian also indicates that 1) many ISIS commanders are from the former Soviet Union and so are their recruits--all enlisted in what is a vast geopolitical project, which not only wants to destroy former Soviet allies in the region, but ultimately Russia too--in line with Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard Game, where the "chessboard" is not really about chess, but it is rather a somewhat cryptic symbol of the plan for the New World Order by means of controlled terror and chaos by proxies such as ISIS.

The ISIS ceremony and their video also displays their spoils of war in the form of US military equipment.

Also, importantly, just before the declaration of the new name for their state (a Saudi colony), ISIS also formally reconciled and re-established its alliance with al Nusra, now the "official" Qaeda army in Syria and the key force behind the US-supported "Islamic Front." Also here etc.

Trading with the enemy and the "new normalcy" of fascism in Europe under the shadow of the Association Agreement of the EU with Ukraine

Sergey Glazyev declared today that Russia should not and does not need to recognize (the legitimacy of) the Association Agreement between the EU and the Kiev regime. Furthermore, Russia should also demand that the Association Agreement not apply to the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.

Glazyev's position is firmer than Moscow's official stance. However, even Glazyev's position is contradictory. Demanding that the Association Agreement not cover the Union of the People's Republics would amount to a self-styled recognition of the Agreement.

Moreover, till now, the EU always claimed that the Association Agreement is strictly and exclusively an issue between the EU and Ukraine and not an issue for Russia to be involved.

German Chancellor Merkel's declaration that the Association Agreement will enter into force after Germany and France work out some technical issues of the Association Agreement with Russia is an attempt to block Russia's own sovereign measures of economic self-defense. Yet the fact of this gesture is showing the hypocrisy and political character of the EU positions. Moreover, this offer was still accompanied by a threat of new sanctions against Russia.

As long as the People's Republics in the Donbass have control on the ground, the Association Agreement cannot be applied to them anyway.

If Russia had the guts to take a more principled position, she would keep reminding the EU of the horrible price exacted by the Association Agreement--the coup, the snipers, the Odessa massacre, the civil war, the rise of  fascism to power, white phosphorous and cluster bombing of civilians, thousands killed and many more wounded, a vast humanitarian catastrophe unfolding, massive human rights violations, deliberate destruction of water supplies, etc.

Furthermore, Russia ought to keep reminding the EU of the $4 billion outstanding debt of the Kiev regime for unpaid gas.

And last, but not least, Russia should emphasize the fact that Ukraine under its current regime is the worst human rights violator in Europe and that, as both the EU and the US use sanctions on the accounts of real or assumed violations of human rights, Russia cannot separate human rights from its treatment of Ukraine and hence also from the Association Agreement. This course of action would be, in my view, justified, effective and proper. However, with some understanding of how Moscow talks and acts, I have no great expectations that Moscow would learn and appreciate soon enough the importance of the issue of human rights or that Moscow would be ready to use the strongest possible argument when it thinks that weak or less than principled arguments or positions are either good enough or even better.

The meaning of the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine: Fascism by association

So, yesterday, the EU signed the Association Agreement with the EU, which required nothing less than a violent unconstitutional coup with at least one hundred dead (due to the snipers first blamed by the junta on the Berkut and disappeared in a quickly disappeared "investigation"), massive continuous lies, giving control over the police and the army to the most ardent fascist groups and individuals, the Odessa massacre, massive kidnappings, disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, persecutions, a civil war, killings of civilians, shelling of hospitals, schools, kindergartens, worship of Bandera and other Hitler's allies, rabid Russophobia, falsified presidential elections, terror, violent repression of anti-oligarchic protests, killings and persecution of antifascists, rejection of antifascist traditions, killings and arrests of journalists, and wholesale nazification of society.

In a word, yesterday (June 27), the EU made history--for the first time, the EU signed an association agreement with a regime, which came to power unconstitutionally.

For the first time, the EU also signed an association agreement with a regime the identity, ideology, and political program of which is that of reborn, rampant Banderism or Ukrainian fascism.

This means that the EU has also became by association and by the fact (I cannot write "by virtue") of its explicit political support an accomplice of the regime, which organized the Odessa massacre and which, on numerous counts, is thus by far the grossest and most dangerous violator of human rights in Europe.

The EU signed an association agreement with the Kiev regime and thus, inescapably and fatefully, also associated itself with the string of crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes which the Kiev regime has committed and keeps on committing--with support, encouragement, and blessing of the overbearing EU.

Empire's Wisdom: Most people need a moral reason to do something bad (so did the Empire run out of moral pretexts?)

The US has been trying to manufacture a number of regime changes around the world, and the situation might be at last reaching a point when yet one more attempted regime and yet another fiasco and mayhem might be "one too many"--even for greatly advanced cognitive dissonance and deniers of reality.

Every time the US tries to sell yet another regime change (or "nation-building), that is, intervention to end all resistance to the New World Order, it tries to whip up moral outrage and self-righteousness. But now with the attempted regime change in Iraq against al-Maliki and with the "sudden" explosion of the ISIS, a terror death squad turned into an army and a quasi-state, Washington is finding itself not only on a thin ice, but also in some sort of a potential American Spring and its own imperial meltdown--with no credibility and hardly any moral ground left to stand on.

That's perhaps also why, at the very moment which was supposed to whip anti-Russia hysteria to a maximum, Obama suddenly decided that he wants Americans and the world to see him as an ordinary "just-like-me" guy, who bravely dares to push against Ann Coulter's anti-soccer fundamentalist stance:

As the caption by the picture also tells us, besides destroying one foreign country at a time (one regime change too many), Obama has also come to recall that there is also such a thing as midterm elections, and the rituals whereby oligarchy presents itself as "representative democracy" would have to be reloaded again.

And so much of the trick, being rather simple, consists in this: "I am just like you. I also like to watch soccer on my TV, and just like you I also like ISIS in Syria and just like you I am also surprised when ISIS funded by the Saudis comes back into headlines and just like you I believe the new Kiev regime is as democratic and moderate as ISIS allies in Syria. Just like you ... I believe all these things."

Ann Coulter is not that stupid, as she sounds: Soccer and the Empire

Ann Coulter, an outspoken right-winger, denounced soccer as anti-American and morally harmful. Her points might be seen stupid, yet, in their own ways, they are not that stupid for they show that she does know what is the formula for   cloning a rugged imperialist and possibly even a new Nazi. (The same formula is also followed almost robotically in numerous Hollywood action and Superheroes movies).

To show it, I will first digest the elements of the formula present in Coulter's repudiation of soccer, which is in fact not merely a criticism of soccer, but a defense and hence disclosure of some of the key elements of the social formula for (re)making and molding characters.

1. The making of a "brave new man" needs to start with deliberate "bruising a child's fragile self-esteem." The sense of one's self needs to be attacked and violated at an early age. A deep wound or injury is to be inflicted to the child's soul. "The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport” and soccer doesn’t have it," Coulter, an initiate into the American social formula, complains. (Hollywood's formula is to start stories with a usually violent death of one or both child's parents and with an attack on the child's own life or, as a minimum, the child is to be collectively and publicly humiliated)

2. The child must be taught very early on that society is not make of equals, but that it is segregated into "heroes" (winners) and losers.

3. Various forms of incipient segregation (i.e., fraternities and secret societies) need to be promoted and encouraged as a badge of social prestige, status, self-esteem, and superiority (in Coulter's soft version of this rule: “Liberal moms like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys.”).

4. The principle of this imbued sense of superiority based on the radically injured self is that "the winner takes it all" (hence playing for the sake of playing and enjoying the game for its own sake is in Coulter's eyes decadent and anti-American: “No other ‘sport’ ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer").

5. The child ought to be taught to see himself, even if unconsciously, much as a weapon, which achieves its purpose and greatness in some violent act (now explicitly taught by some of the recent Hollywood productions). “You can’t use your hands in soccer,” Coulter says, [this] goes against “[w]hat sets man apart from the lesser beasts." In other words, one's arms are arms, and the child of the empire is taught that his violence and weaponization of his desires is what raises him above "lesser beasts."


Here is Coulter's Nazi anti-soccer catechism as presented to the public on the occasion of the World Championship of Soccer in Brazil:

“Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer … There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child’s fragile self-esteem is bruised.”
“Liberal moms like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys.”
“No other ‘sport’ ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer.”
“The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport” and soccer doesn’t have it.
“You can’t use your hands in soccer,” a fact that, Coulter believes, goes against “[w]hat sets man apart from the lesser beasts,” i.e., “we have opposable thumbs.”
“The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO’s ‘Girls,’ light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton.”
 ”It’s foreign.”

Ann Coulter's full essay on the political and moral threats of soccer is here, together with her masterfully connecting the metric system with the guillotine and her inability to visualize 147.2 centimeters.

If ISIL is ISIS, then the US tries hard to be ISIS's Osiris

Statements by Western (Imperial) politicians, media and pundits on Iraq and ISIS are amazing in their refined, sophistic hubris, hypocrisy, and schizophrenia (in the old sense of the word).

When one reads them carefully, one can see that they effectively admit that the US and ISIS do have the same strategic goal: "the destruction" or redrawing of the destruction of the Sykes-Picot Treaty borders of the Middle East by war, violence, and terror, and especially by means of al Qaeda/ISIS:

William Bradley of Huff-huff Huffington Post: "That birthing process, which involves the destruction of the Sykes-Picot Treaty lines of 1916 -- one of the most important express purposes of ISIS -- is already in its final stages. And what we are seeing emerge is something not at all unlike what then Senator Joe Biden called for in 2007, a de facto partition of the Iraqi state essentially created by the secret World War I deal by France and Britain to dismember the Ottoman Empire and create new imperial spoils in the Middle East.

And, in order to accomplish that, they also admit that they don't really mean or intend to hit ISIS--the key instrument of this violent makeover:

"So what should we do going forward? ... Will [the US actions] lead to Iraqi government forces winning back the vast swathes of territory lost to ISIS? Probably not. .... Make diplomatic overtures to more moderate Sunni groups and leaders, and avoid where possible the causing of non-ISIS casualties, even among groups participating with ISIS in military offensives."

In a word, the US is supposed to strike against ISIS by "avoiding non-ISIS casualties, even among groups participating with ISIS in military offensives." In a plain language, this means that the US is going to avoid strikes against ISIS period. For this is the only way in which to avoid casualties of the supposed non-ISIS fighters fighting among ISIS.

On top of it, the US does effectively admit that its allies, hence by extension the US, which is allied to these, are behind ISIS: "[It would be nice to] urge our Gulf Arab allies to halt their dangerous game of funding radical Islamist outfits."

Yatsenyuk, the "prime" crusader against "subhumans" in the East wants to get "publicly technical" about the "risks" of the junta's anti-Russian fascism

Ukraine’s parliament-appointed Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has said the country is ready for public technical consultations with Russia over the Association Agreement with the European Union.“In order to settle all disagreements on this issue we’re ready for consultations. Let Russians tell us about the risks,” Yatsenyuk said on Wednesday.

This reminds me yet of another Czech joke, which my father actually liked a lot. Two men: one wants to back up into a garage and asks the other one to watch for him and tell him how far to go. The "navigator" (here the EU) agrees and starts telling the driver: "Keep going! Keep going! And now you can also get out and see what you have done!"

A girl from Slavyansk, a benefactor of Poroshenko's "ceasefire":

Now, more seriously. Both the EU and Maidan have kept refusing any negotiations with Russia over the EU's splendid plan of colonizing Ukraine, closing its industries and mines, and flooding Ukraine with EU subsidized agricultural products. Now, literally few days before signing, they suddenly want to have "public technical talks" with Russia. The point? Both the EU and the junta know that they are doing something bad to Ukraine and also to Russia for the Association Agreement is also supposed to fix Ukraine into an openly anti-Russian (pro-)NATO buffer full of EU-approved Russophobia in what Yatsenyuk and his buddies call "a hybrid war" with Russia (a term they learned from their US advisers).

This is how Euromaidan and the junta leaders and followers revel and pride in their crime and inhuman barbarism; they tried to make motivational commercials out of it:

The junta is now concerned that Russia, as she already said clearly before, would have to introduce defensive counter-measures. But both the EU and the Kiev junta want to have a free hand in harming Russia, while they insist that Russia do nothing in turn and that she keep giving her sworn enemies the rope on which they want to hang her.

Now, since there are, indeed, no signs that Kremlin advisers are more fond of their own interpretation of Chinese "doing nothing" than of advocating bolder moves, two things might need to be emphasized. The junta's chief purpose, as Sergey Glazyev also understands, is to prepare and pursue their hybrid and potentially less than hybrid war on Russia whereby the junta sees as the fulfillment of its mission on earth to serve as NATO's proxy and dog of self-annihilating war and policy.

This means that, for Russia, trade with Ukraine can no longer (and no longer really is) trade as usual. Trading with Ukraine under the junta means trading with the most extreme Russophobes one can find--it surpasses even the Poles with their "blow jobs" and "negritude" before the US (as Poland's Foreign Minister Sikorski put it).

Second, because of the brutal and vicious clampdown on antifascist resistance in the south-east of Ukraine (from the Odessa massacre to phosphorous bombs and "filtration" concentration camps), Ukraine and the junta's reborn fascism is the grossest violator of human rights in Europe.

One of the many horrific images from the Nazi terror organized jointly by the junta regime and its paramilitaries during the Oddessa massacre on May 2:

Russia has to take this into consideration too and use this fully in defense of the rights and freedoms of all genuine democrats and antifascists in Ukraine.

The sad, but not that unexpected, fact is that the massive human rights violations by the junta has been massively denied by the US, NATO, and the EU and massively downplayed by the UN. The voice of activists to change this is not enough.

Bottom line: the EU and the junta are hurling Ukraine into an economic, political and identity abyss. And they actually even know it, but they would rather see much destroyed than admit their crime and try to stop it or rectify it. The only thing which they demand at this point that there be no resistance to this self-destruct mission.

A result of the junta's airstrike on the center of Lugansk, which the junta's media cynically proclaimed to have been a result of a spontaneous explosion of an air-conditioner or a self-inflicted death (as they also claimed happened to the more than 100 victims of the Odessa massacre):

The junta under the colonial navigation of the US, NATO, and the EU leads Ukraine against the wall, and Ukraine is already crushing. EU economic dictate that would allow a terminal plunder of Ukraine, while giving Ukraine nothing in return, is to turn Ukraine into a terminal patient and to reduce her ability just to one--to cause destruction and die.

And let's not forget that the same Yatsenyuk, a former Ukraine central banker, is also the very same person who declared that people in the east of Ukraine are "subhumans" (Untermenschen) who must be "wiped out" and "cleansed." After the discovery of this statement proudly posted on the website of the Ukrainian Embassy in the US, "subhumans" were improved upon by modified into "inhuman." Of course, those who applauded and praised the Odessa massacre and burning alive of some many women, even children, and elderly have no right and no credibility as experts on "humanity."

Like the fascists in Odessa during the massacre, Obama and Merkel are also full of smiles when they meet Yatsenyuk or other fascist leaders from Ukraine. Obama praises them as the best thing, which happened to Europe after Polish Solidarity (Solidarnosch).

Wikipedia - Untermensch:

Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe "inferior people" often referred to as "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs; including Poles, Serbs, Belarusians, Russians, and Rusyns. The term was also applied to black people and Mulattos. Jewish people were to be exterminated in the Holocaust, just as Slavs in Generalplan Ost, who were destined to be removed from European territory under German control through murder and ethnic cleansing.

What is the price of saving the Moloch of capitalism from itself? And if it is war, how big a war does it take?

Ukraine is now ruled by pro-fascist billionaires. How much do they value an ordinary human life? You think?

On June 26, Western/European leaders will gather to "commemorate World War I" in Ypres. The strange thing is that I don't recall the EU or the West to have special official commemorations at such a high level--moreover, I don't recall when heads of states want to commemorate world events on the WRONG date: World War I started on July 28 and the Ypres chemical attack happened on April 22 (1915).

On June 27, Poroshenko is supposed to sign off Ukraine to the whim and pleasure of the EU through the Association Agreement, which is as good as signing off one's soul to the devil.

On the same day, the West is also supposed to adopt a firm and most likely aggressive, hostile and punishing set of policies against Russia.

So, if we add all this up, it appears that the architects and builders of the New World War, who have also gone earlier on record declaring that Russia has been sinning against it, decided to tied up the first best known weapons of mass destruction attack of the modern time with a World War, the crisis in Ukraine, and a new Drang nach Osten or a new anti-Russian campaign, which can easily, I repeat, easily spin out of control and plunge not only the world economy, but mankind itself into an abyss. And not because Western leaders love mankind or freedom so much. No. Because they love power, profit and status incomparably more than mankind or lives of millions, as the 20th century and its two world wars and many other conflicts have already sufficiently convicted them.

"Ceasefire" the junta's way: "We prefer to burn and shoot defenseless people"

1. "Ceasefire" in the Ukraine clearly means continuation of the war as before--no matter of how often such "ceasefire" was announced or promised.

2. However, even RT continues to call the continuation of attacks on the Donbass "ceasefire." Everyone is free to figure that one out.

3. Russia failed to call the Kiev regime on the blunt and massive violations of the ceasefire (in the real sense of the word "ceasefire").

4. "Ceasefire" is not simply a continuation of the war by the same means--by war, violence, and terror. The junta is in the final stage of ever growing buildup and resupply.

5. While the ability of the Western politician and the Western media to pretend that something is when it is not and that something is not when it is is nearly infinite, Moscow cannot assert for that long that Poroshenko's promises mean 1) either nothing at all or 2) something entirely different than what the words say.

6. In this situation, if "ceasefire" means what it means currently, it would be easy to make or declare "peace" in a similar way--in the Roman imperial and Orwellian way: peace would be war and the objective of such "peace" would be to make first a desert out of the Donbass and then, after the junta's would have been trained on the shooting range of the Donbass, the Kiev regime, as advised and ordered, would try to march "with ceasefires and peace" unto Crimea or perhaps even taking a short-cut via Moscow itself.

On June 24, Vladimir Putin said this: The decision to take back the right to send Russian troops to Ukraine as a way of assisting the initiated peace process is premised on the expectation or condition that the rights and freedoms of the people in eastern Ukraine will be safeguarded and guaranteed.

The position of the West: The Kiev regime is perfectly democratic and constitutional, and there are no Nazis in Ukraine or, at least, no Nazis should be worried about unless we choose to paint Putin and Russia that way. Actually, what happened in Kiev ought to be a model for which Russia itself ought to aspire.

Now, if I may chime in: the elementary fact is that fascism and Banderism are by definition and by their nature incompatible not only with any rule or law or constitutional order, but above all with basic political rights and freedoms of anyone. Fascism is the doctrine of radical inequality; fascism yearns for redividing people into new masters and slaves. In this regard, the only right which fascism effectively allows is the right of death.

In addition, Putin also made this point: To demand that self-defense disarm is senseless, for they remember the Odessa massacre. Without arms they would be burned alive. The putschists' various Banderite and fascist paramilitaries, which the oligarchs and their pro-NATO coup armed, would also need to be disarmed first.

Why do Western leaders want to commemorate the beginning of World War I one month ahead and in Ypres out of all the places? Should we be worried?

As we know, President Putin has asked the Russian Federal Council, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, to call off the March 1 resolution allowing the head of state to use the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine.

Poroshenko likes it and the West too can hardly want to "punish" Russia for this move or to introduce more sanctions. This sudden and, yes, unexpected move comes just a week or so after more Russian troops were moved back and now even unapologetically--to the borders with Ukraine.

The most effective criticism of this new Putin's move from the West is that it "shows and merely confirms" that Putin's will is the will of the Russian "parliament," that is, that the parliament is not real, but only Putin's own collective rubber stamp. 

Needless to say, this criticism is not one that is easily dismissible or refutable even though Russian politics has not developed the same kind of political theater, which Western "democracies" have. 

Still it would be really interesting--it would be quite a curve ball, if the Russian Upper House were suddenly to deny Putin's request since the powers granted to Putin on March 1 contain a language that explicitly says the right to use military force on the territory of the neighboring Ukraine will last “until the normalization of the social and political situation in that country.” 

As of now, no one can argue with a straight face that the political situation in the Ukraine has been normalized in any considerable sense. 

Having said, I still believe that the Upper House will do exactly what Putin has asked it to do and would not prove Western critics of Russian "authoritarianism" wrong on this account. We don't know if Putin is getting anything in return for this move. In the case of the absence of any proof to the contrary, it is hard to assume that this move is not one-sided. At the same time, it is hard to exclude the negative, especially, if it is not visible or apparent to a public eye. 

In this situation, the fact remains that June 27 is an artificially created critical date in the calendar which the West, the EU, and the European Council strangely chose to commemorate in a special ceremony after all these years the cause of the long 20th-century World War over who will rule the world (known as World War I) in Ypres (the site of the notorious chemical attack). And nearly all the pending decision of this Western Central Committee for how to rule the world will be taken over Ukraine and ... apparently in one form or another against Russia. In a word, June 27 and the few days after (or just before it) will mark a certain threshold behind which there might be our joint abyss or a trajectory reminiscent of the paths of those meteorites who came too close to earth before moving on back into the abyss of space. Russia clearly tries to be on its best possible behavior and to affect the decisions in the most favorable way, as she sees it. However, as a rule, decisions of such importance are hardly made in the last second. Very likely, the dice was already cast, and the bloodthirsty masters of mankind have already made up their Cyborg-like mind.

So why June 26 was chosen as the date on which "to commemorate World War I" by the Western rulers, who have suddenly rediscovered "democrats" in followers of fascist Banderites in Ukraine? The official explanation is terse and not much sensible: "The Heads of state or government of the European Union (EU) member states during their meeting next week will commemorate the outbreak of the First World War (WWI). The EU leaders will meet on June 26 in Ypres, a Belgian town located in the Flemish province of West Flanders, for a commemoration ceremony to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the WWI, according to the agenda unveiled by the EU."

The fact is that the main battles of Ypres took place in periods, which skip June: 1) October 19 – November 22, 1914, 2) April 22 – May 15, 1915, 3) July 31 – November 6, 1917, 3) April 9 – April 29, 1918, 5)  September 28 – October 2, 1918. The chemical attack of Ypres launched by the German Army took place on April 22, 1915. Lethal chlorine gas was used and 150 tons of it. Moreover, World War I started on July 28 and not on June 26 or 27. 

What is clear though is that the Western masters did choose to make their possibly fatal decisions (and mistakes) by draping themselves in the dark symbolism of World War I, which destroyed most of the then existing empires, except for three: the British, the French, and the rising American one.

The only possibly significant event tied to Ypres, World War I, and June 26 (more or less), I could find is the publication of an official statement from Germany's War Command that addressed the German use of poison gas on April 22, 1915. The statement argued that the Allies’s outraged reaction to German chlorine gas was hypocritical; the French had been manufacturing and employing gas in battle well before the Second Battle of Ypres: "What hypocrisy when the same people grow indignant because the Germans much later followed them on the path they had pointed out!" The French were, in fact, the first to employ gas during World War I–in August 1914;  they used tear-gas grenades containing xylyl bromide, which was an “irritant,” but not lethal.

So what to make of this? The most coherent explanation would be that the US, NATO, and the Kiev regime might have, I repeat, might have prepared a version of their false flag chemical attack, which al Nusra (now the official al-Qaeda in Syria) tried to pull out near Damascus in the East Ghouta on August 21, 2013, in order to enable the US to turn its armed forces effectively into al Qaeda’s Air Force and to win the battle of Damascus and thus for Syria for the supposedly “moderate opposition” led by al Qaeda’s terror divisions and death squads.

And if symbolism matters, then Western leaders seem to commemorate not just World War I in general at this concrete historical juncture, but Western hypocrisy, as it relates to war, in particular.

In a word, this week or so is a time when the probability of a massive provocation supposed to be a “game changer” is very high. In this light, and that means seriously, one also needs to read and review some of the earlier reports of the Ukrainian army deploying units and elements of its WMD troops in the east of the country.

US to Poroshenko: "You are in charge, but don't touch the controls!"

Poroshenko's "peace plan" and "ceasefire," which was declared to last from 10 PM on June 20 till 10 AM on June 27, has been actually very instructive for it introduces several notable possibilities since, as it turned out very quickly, it does not mean a fxxxing thing: 

1) Poroshenko does not know what he is saying; 2) Poroshenko does know what he is saying, but it means absolutely nothing since all the real power remains as before in the hands of the Committee for Nazi Terror ("Public Safety") made by Parubiy, Avakov, Yatsenyuk and led by Geoffrey Paytt, the US Ambassador to Kiev; 3) Poroshenko knows what he is saying, but, except for Western media, no one in Ukraine, including the junta, listens to him or takes him for anything but a talking figurehead, thus alternative 2) still applies; 4) Poroshenko does not know what he is saying--perhaps much like Jen Psaki--and, on top of it, what he says does not mean a fxxxing thing, again just like in Jen Psaki's case; hence alternative 2 still applies; 5) Poroshenko is lying big time; and because he is a liar and also the US choice of Ukraine's president, he is given a place at the table of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Protectorate; or 6) but because he is a very bad liar, alternative 2 still applies.

Any of these alternatives, however, also make Poroshenko badly incompetent for any genuine peace talks.

This too reminds of an old Czech joke (but a different one), which ran something like this: A specially trained man flies into space with a even more specially trained ass. The specially trained man gets to read his instructions: "Feed the ass, but otherwise let the ass do the rest--above all, stay clear of the controls!" 

Or like in the real life case of Shannon Lucid. Recounting what the two Russian cosmonauts told her every time they left the Mir space station for a spacewalk, 1996, famously recalled their friendly advice/instruction as follows: “You are in charge, but don’t touch the controls.”

Poroshenko's "peace plan" might also be the leftover piece from a moment when the US tried to sell Russia a fraudulent deal of "keeping" Crimea (for now) in exchange for letting the junta wipe out east Ukraine before proceeding with the rest of the business: storming Crimea or even pushing on Moscow itself with what might have been in several months a Ukrainian half-million army aided by NATO with all the accompanying threats and bluffs some of which has already been used.

As it turns out, the Emirate of ISIS (the spouse of the God of the Dead) is actually a province/colony of Saudi Arabia!

Furthermore, it has also been recently reported on the basis of intelligence supplied by an ISIS insider (Al-Arabiya's article and video on the interrogation of an ISIS/ISIL fighter captured in Syria) that Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisaland Prince Turki al-Faisal, was the actual “supreme commander” of ISIS/ISIL. Saudi Arabia is thus in command and in charge of the ISIS and not its Iragi persona who goes under the name of al-Baghdadi and who was in US custody in Iraq from 2005 till 2009. (For more interesting background on the ISIS you are advised to look into the previous link)

Also bear in mind that al-Arabiya is a Saudi-owned "pan-Arab" news channel!

All this means whatever the exact identity of the Saudi Prince was that, in the face of the crisis and possible US strikes (however symbolic) against the ISIS in Iraq (and possibly also in Syria), Saudi Arabia is thus publicly and brazenly declaring that the beast, ISIS/al Qaeda, is its own army, child, Frankenstein monster, or bastard (whichever of these you prefer).  In a word, Saudi Arabia has found a way of declaring that the monster, whether it is now an army of some 60,000 (at least) or a new state on the map of the Middle East is, indeed, theirs. This should have been a shot that ought to be talked about around the world as much as Yatsenyuk's declaration of the Kiev Nazi commitment to cleanse all the "subhumans" in Ukraine who don't like and oppose Banderite fascism, the junta, the oligarchs, and NATO expansion.

Saudi Arabia is thereby also putting defiantly the US, which already knows this parentage and foster care, on notice. By revealing that much--its own Saudi head of the ISIS/al Qaea of Iraq, Saudi Arabia clearly and quite openly demands that the US treat its ally and their joint progeny as a good ally, comrade, and conspirator. In other words, Saudi Arabia found it necessary to impose strict limits on what the US may want to do against or about the ISIS in Iraq and calls the public, especially in the Middle East, which follows al Arabiya and developments in Syria, as its witness!

In other words, through its own media channel, Saudi Arabia has made it known that attack on the ISIS would be clearly tantamount to an attack on the Saudi royal family itself. And it seems that Saudi Arabia decided that the stakes are too high and thus decided that the risk of coming out is worthy it and had to be taken.

Thus we have what appears as a deliberate strategic leak, which, of course, Western media treat as taboo--they have more important Newspeak propaganda to report.

Moreover, one cannot fail to see that the US never was much concerned about the ISIS. The US has not been ever much concerned about it. What the US really wants is to topple Maliki and, to this effect, the US is using the ISIS and its threat to achieve its regime change in Iraq No. 2. In 2003, there was no al Qaeda, but this did not prevent the US from falsely asserting that it is so. Now, more than ten years later, al Qaeda in the form of the ISIS has carved out of Iraq and Syria what is effectively a protectorate or fundamentalist emirate of Saudi Arabia. The US, however, wants to use the current crisis to remove no really the ISIS, but Maliki and with him the current Iraqi government. The fact is that Maliki did not allow the US to stay in after 2010, and his government is too pro-Iranian in the eyes of the West.

The claim of the "few thousand fighters of the ISIS" is part of the ongoing PR campaign observed from the beginning of the attempted regime change in Syria that was meant and tries to downplay and conceal the prevalent fundamentalist nature of the faux "freedom fighters" and "moderate rebels" supported by the West and the fact that al Qaeda armies form the core and the most and best trained and equipped forces of the force jointly created by the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and the rest of NATO in their joint push to install a new dictatorial "World Order" by means of the most reactionary militants available. This war machine is massive, it is very well trained, organized, and equipped, and it controls upwards of 5-10 million people in Syria and Iraq. Few thousand militants can never control that many.

Trust CNN to tell you what the US really wants (in Iraq and Syria)--provided you can read it

In the midst of the crisis in Iraq caused by the advances of the ISIS (originally, al Qaeda of Iraq) and feeble US attempts to explain away the "sudden" (for the uninformed and the lazy) rise of this Qaeda army-turned-caliphate, CNN's Scott Anderson effectively unveiled the truer US position and goals (in between the lines) at a price of a bit of disinformation and a bit of "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. According to Anderson, what is happening now is the fault of the British and the French, the US key allies, whose imperialism "irreversibly" messed up the region in the early 20th century--almost one hundred years ago (which is quite true, but it leaves out the white-washed burden of the US).

Anderson correctly or almost correctly says: "We're simply starting to run out of places which the European imperialists screwed up." He should have added: "We are also running out places which US imperialism has not screwed up."

However, the most stunning revelation hidden between the lines and cunningly assigned to Syria and Iraq as the would-be carriers of the US real objective, which cannot be understandably spoken out directly, is that the US is not against turning the state of the ISIS into a new accepted reality on the ground. And an article like this is a way of how to start the public used and reconciled to such an idea--i.e. by saying (in the right Machiavellian way) that, "perversely" the victims of the US plan want this themselves. 

CNN has discovered the perfidy of British and French imperialism in the Middle East, but then it slyly stops its more than sixty years belated critique of imperialism by the events of the 1950s, that is, just on the threshold of Pax Americana., CNN then does a remarkably Machiavellian thing: it effectively reveals the US plan and strategy by assigning its own objectives to its victims and targets: Syria and Iraq. 

In its "perverse" conclusion, the CNN article  tries to make the US wish to be the desired mindset of the targeted countries:  "Perversely, there may soon come a time when both the Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad and the Alawite-dominated one in Damascus both decide such a terror-state [by the ISIS] might be the best way to be rid of their Sunni enemies." 

CNN also perfidiously inserts this dis-information, which is but a transparent ongoing US goal for Syria in its regime change campaign that has greatly assisted the ISIS, al Nusra and other terror jihadist armies; but clever CNN now tries to pin and present this US wish as a would-be thought of the Syrian government itself: "there is now talk within Bashar al-Assad's embattled regime of slicing off the Alawite-dominated western portions of Syria to create a more defensible mini-state." 

The fact is that the ISIS has already been in control of Syria's east and parts of north for the last two years or so and the same ISIS has been also controlling much of Iraq's west for some years as well. And these territories are not just deserts, but also population centers with millions of people living there. But the existence of this quasi state has been concealed from the Western public in a similar way in which the nearly open existence of Ukrainian fascists in control of the Kiev junta's war machine is been denied and concealed.

The above so carefully leaked and revealed, while concealing it, by CNN also helps clarify the US "suddenly strange" position which started demanding a regime change in Iraq, a departure of Maliki's government, as a needed price for any US "help." 

So, as it happens, and to give an example of similar suddenly mushrooming statements now coming from the US, another recent CNNarticle argued with reference to the highest US officials: 

"As the al Qaeda splinter group ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, continues its fierce advance in Iraq, senior U.S. officials tell CNN that the Obama administration is of the belief that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is not the leader Iraq needs to unify the country and end sectarian tensions. The officials, along with Arab diplomats, say the White House is now focused on a political transition that would move Iraqis toward a more inclusive government -- one without al-Maliki … But despite al-Maliki's words, there's a growing chorus of calls -- both in Washington and in the Arab world -- for him to go if there is to be any hope of unifying Iraq as the Islamic militants advance. ... Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said al-Maliki has to be convinced that it's in the country's best interest for him to retire." I think that most of us that have followed this are really convinced that the Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation," she said this week. Publicly though, the White House isn't being as direct. Earlier this week in a Yahoo News interview, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States shouldn't be dictating to the Iraqi people that al-Maliki needs to resign."Now, we clearly can play an encouraging, consultative role in helping them to achieve that transition, and we have people on the ground right now," he said.” 

So the bottom line, quite discernible now by any half-decent analyst, is that the US is trying to use the current advance of the ISIS/al Qaeda for yet another regime change in Iraq—against the same government, which tries to stem the advance of the ISIS and that this goal—the fall of the current Iraqi government—is for the US the real goal. Moreover, the US is, as a minimum, quietly blasé when it comes to the existence and continued existence of a new terror state in the center of the Middle East, which has been richly funded and supplied by US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, andQatar anyway and whose commanders relax and are treated in Turkey, a key NATO member state. And the ISIS’ daughter, al Nusra, has taken the lead position in the new US-backed anti-Syrian Islamic Alliance, which has replaced the US-backed Free Syrian Army.

Numerous media accounts and occasional officials, especially from Jordan, also report that, both in Jordan and Turkey, some of the best trained ISIS militants at secret bases and camps by the US. Interestingly enough, the Turkish direct support of al Qaeda (al Nusra) was confirmed by the US own officials. 

Furthermore, it has also been recently reported on the basis of intelligence supplied by an ISIS insider (Al-Arabiya's article and video on the interrogation of an ISIS/ISIL fighter captured in Syria) that Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisaland Prince Turki al-Faisal, was the actual “supreme commander” of ISIS/ISIL. Saudi Arabia is thus in command and in charge of the ISIS and not its Iragi persona who goes under the name of al-Baghdadi and who was in US custody in Iraq from 2005 till 2009. (For more interesting background on the ISIS you are advised to look into the previous link)

Also bear in mind that al-Arabiya is a Saudi-owned "pan-Arab" news channel!

All this means whatever the exact identity of the Saudi Prince was that, in the face of the crisis and possible US strikes (however symbolic) against the ISIS in Iraq (and possibly also in Syria), Saudi Arabia is thus publicly and brazenly declaring that the beast, ISIS/al Qaeda, is its own army, child, Frankenstein monster, or bastard (whichever of these you prefer).  In a word, Saudi Arabia has found a way of declaring that the monster, whether it is now an army of some 60,000 (at least) or a new state on the map of the Middle East is, indeed, theirs. This should have been a shot that ought to be talked about around the world as much as Yatsenyuk's declaration of the Kiev Nazi commitment to cleanse all the "subhumans" in Ukraine who don't like and oppose Banderite fascism, the junta, the oligarchs, and NATO expansion.

Saudi Arabia is thereby also putting defiantly the US, which already knows this parentage and foster care, on notice. By revealing that much--its own Saudi head of the ISIS/al Qaea of Iraq, Saudi Arabia clearly and quite openly demands that the US treat its ally and their joint progeny as a good ally, comrade, and conspirator. In other words, Saudi Arabia found it necessary to impose strict limits on what the US may want to do against or about the ISIS in Iraq and calls the public, especially in the Middle East, which follows al Arabiya and developments in Syria, as its witness!

In other words, through its own media channel, Saudi Arabia has made it known that attack on the ISIS would be clearly tantamount to an attack on the Saudi royal family itself. And it seems that Saudi Arabia decided that the stakes are too high and thus decided that the risk of coming out is worthy it and had to be taken.

Thus we have what appears as a deliberate strategic leak, which, of course, Western media treat as taboo--they have more important Newspeak propaganda to report.

Moreover, one cannot fail to see that the US never was much concerned about the ISIS. The US has not been ever much concerned about it. What the US really wants is to topple Maliki and, to this effect, the US is using the ISIS and its threat to achieve its regime change in Iraq No. 2. In 2003, there was no al Qaeda, but this did not prevent the US from falsely asserting that it is so. Now, more than ten years later, al Qaeda in the form of the ISIS has carved out of Iraq and Syria what is effectively a protectorate or fundamentalist emirate of Saudi Arabia. The US, however, wants to use the current crisis to remove no really the ISIS, but Maliki and with him the current Iraqi government. The fact is that Maliki did not allow the US to stay in after 2010, and his government is too pro-Iranian in the eyes of the West.

The claim of the "few thousand fighters of the ISIS" is part of the ongoing PR campaign observed from the beginning of the attempted regime change in Syria that was meant and tries to downplay and conceal the prevalent fundamentalist nature of the faux "freedom fighters" and "moderate rebels" supported by the West and the fact that al Qaeda armies form the core and the most and best trained and equipped forces of the force jointly created by the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and the rest of NATO in their joint push to install a new dictatorial "World Order" by means of the most reactionary militants available. This war machine is massive, it is very well trained, organized, and equipped, and it controls upwards of 5-10 million people in Syria and Iraq. Few thousand militants can never control that many.

The War on Terror: Downsizing people's freedoms and outsourcing the work of terror to the Thugs United

On June 10, 2014, the ISIS, the original al Qaeda of Iraq (just renamed in order to play the game "Now you know me, now you don't"--for the dis-informed or the lazy in the West) seized the second largest city in Iraq with vast oil resources. 

On Friday June 13, Obama brought himself to address this astounding fall-out and consequence of the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror. This vast global enterprise the aim of which is a creation of a new "final" order out of deliberate chaos calculated by well-endowed US "think tanks" cost already by June of 2011 up to $4 trillion in U.S. spending, as established by scholars with the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. A Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report put the figure already around $ 6 trillion. Other detailed study put the costs of this vast enterprise officially meant to make the US and the West "safer" and "more secure," while building up a vast machinery of outsourced terror, close to $ 4 trillion as of March of 2013.  In other words, the War on Terror, which is making terror a key element of this new emerging order, has been the US "New Deal" with the world. It is "the Deal." 

So, in the face of these nasty realities to which many Americans have already wakened up before, while many others feel that they have been suddenly hit with something bizarre, Obama, the pseudo-father in chief, took it upon oneself to reassure 1) that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the massive swelling of al Qaeda, 2) that the White House, as always, carefully follows what is happening and is thus in good control (of the message), 3) that al Qaeda's takeover of perhaps half of Iraq is not "a brand new" threat or fact, 4) that it is largely the fault of Maliki himself, and 5) that the Obama administration always knows what it is doing and why it is doing it. 

Since, however, this crude dawning inflicted upon the "exceptionally good" American nation is undeniable blowing up to smithereens the former justification, rationalization, and lies of the "War on Terror" and its force-fed cognitive and moral disorder, Obama felt compelled to explain away and cover up again the stark deception, contradictions, and lies that veiled the ugly truth staring now into the eyes of the whole world, including even many of the diminishing deniers. 

But since the reality and the official tale spun by Washington are so apart, Obama understood that, while he needs to say something, he cannot dwell too much on it. In other words, he needed to come up with 2-3 plausible talking points, then repeat them several times for retention effect, and then flee. Almost literally. To flee one's own shadow as well as responsibility and accountability. 

That's apparently also why Obama or rather his advisers-handlers chose the presidential chopper for the background of Obama's statement. 

The helicopter waiting for Obama to lieft him out somewhere as soon as he finishes made it look as if Obama was in a hurry to get somewhere else for something more important, But he was kind enough to stop for a moment to explain to the kids about the mess in Iraq, which "was not brand new": "Don't worry, we had intelligence and we told the Iraqis: 'We told you so.'" In other words, the statement on al Qaeda emerging now as a de facto state partioning Iraq and Syria was cast as Obama's "by thew way" remark in his passage from a breakfast to some new, yet undisclosed location. 

So let's look closely at Obama's statement on the ISIS, the original al Qaeda in Iraq (from early 2004), which has now occupied a large part of Iraq and significant areas in Syria. 

Obama: "Now, this threat is not brand new. Over the last year, we’ve been steadily ramping up our security assistance ..."

Obama seems to acknowledge, yet, in fact, he conceals the fact that this al Qaeda militia turned into a large terrorist quasi-state came to Iraq with the US invasion and its War on Terror. 

Obama: "I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences ..."

Suddenly, when ISIS/al Qaeda makes all these huge gains, for the US and Obama, the War on Terror and the whole justification for the Iraq War is no longer "solely or even primarily a military challenge." And what is the reason cited for this great terrorist threat? According to Obama, ISIS/al Qaeda has grown so much because of "Iraq's leaders" and Iraqi "mistrust." If the Iraqis only trusted their al Qaeda more, would this ISIS/Qaeda army be less of a threat?

So what to do? According to Obama, sending U.S. troops back is out of question, but he advises Iraq that, when confronting this ugly continuous legacy of the US war on Iraq, he has a piece of advice to the Iraqi government by helpfully calling for "a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities." The US destroyed Iraq for the Iraqis, but now "we can’t do it for them." So now Obama says, "in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action ... won’t succeed." IN other words, Obama says that he does not believe in the efficacy of any "short-term military action" (perhaps as short as the war and occupation in Iraq) for the Iraqi government should "account for legitimate interests of all communities," which seems to include the "community" of the ISIS/al Qaeda as well. 

Obama then proceeds, echoing similar words of John Kerry: "So this should be a wake-up call." The audacity of imperial hypocrisy. After 13 years of the War on Terror that turned al Qaeda into a quasi state and a large army capable on occupying much of Iraq, Obama is now telling the Iraq’s leaders "to wake up"!

Part of the "waking-up" part of Obama's speech is his assurance to the Iraqis that the US is basically washing its hands and saying the chaos brought about by the invasion, war, and occupation is now your own mess--good luck: "So the United States will do our part, but understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems."

Another essential point needs to be noted and emphasized: slyly, Obama made sure that he never in his statement mentions the word "al Qaeda" or that he admits that the ISIS is actually al Qaeda of Iraq--after a series of relabeling itself. Its current name adopted in April 2013, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Sham), moreover, makes it clear that al Qaeda has now been considering itself not merely as a franchise or an organization, but as a state in its own right. Indeed, it now controls a vast territory with millions of people under their control. On January 3, 2014, the ISIS did, moreover, declare its "independence" as a state.  A fact kept by the Western media away from the public. 

In the face of these stark realities, Obama then apologetically and insincerely reassured the world that the US made sure that the ISIL would not "establish a a safe haven" which it has ... not mention in this tremendous size: "Indeed, across the region we have redoubled our efforts to help build more capable counter-terrorism forces so that groups like ISIL can’t establish a safe haven." In the face of this grave and imminent threat of a fast expanding terror state, Obama furthermore generously promised to support--Iraq's " moderate opposition in Syria," which is so moderate that it includes the very same ISIS besides al Nusra and other al Qaeda groups as their main corps. 

So, according to Obama, the invasion of Iraq and the long, violent occupation was really just "giving Iraqis the opportunity [for] a better destiny." Somehow, it turned out that this opportunity became al Qaeda's opportunity that happens once in centuries. 

And here comes Obama's schyzoid or rather a cynical liar: "ISIL has been able to gain a foothold in Syria. That's part of the reason why we’ve been so concerned about it. That's part of the reason why we’ve been supporting the Syrian opposition there." The US support for this "opposition" the main force of which has been ISIS and al Nusra has greatly supported the rise of the same ISIS and al Nusra. But saying, as Obama does, that the US was concerned about the ISIS, so it needed to support the opposition so much can work only for those who, even after three years, remain criminally clueless about the fact that al Qaeda and the opposition much overlap. They are not the same side against the Syrian government, as they are against the Iraqi government.

Sociopaths and empires have no shame.

Can we still continue in denial? Can the US still afford to be an Empire in denial as David Chandler and Nial Ferguson (also here) correctly diagnosed the condition of the hegemon and, before them, Geir Lundestad?

For example, the real identity and existence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS), has been till recently presented as a great mystery and secret. Some in the West even argued that he might be fictional. Well, as it turned out, the US knew very well who he was for  as many as four years in one of their facilities in Iraq since 2005 till 2009. In 2009, the US released him even though they knew that he was a multiple murderer and dangerous terrorist.As a Pentagon document confirms, Abu Bakr al-Baghdad was involved in the intimidation, torture and murder of local civilians in Qaim ... He would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.” Why such a ferocious individual was deemed fit for release in 2009 is a critical question in its own right. One possible explanation is that he was one of thousands of suspected insurgents granted amnesty. Under his command, as the Telegraph now acknowledges without emphasizing it too much, "al-Qaeda [became] the pre-eminent rebel movement in the fight against President Assad." The bottom line is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was released just in time before the US pullout from Iraq and, before the engineered regime change attempts in Libya and Iraq, in which Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's al Qaeda played a pivotal role.

Speaking of Libya and Syria, the two wars are not only connected through al Qaeda, the two are also connected by a enormous gun-running operation of the CIA, which was centered in Benghazi and around the misleadingly called "embassy" or "consulate" of the US where Ambassador Stevens was killed on 9/11 in 2012. Earlier that year--at the end of 2011/the beginning of 2012, the CIA dropped in Libya's desert what has been dubbed "the sea of weapons." And it so happened that the one who found and seized this "sea of weapons" was ... well al Qaeda. 

And is it a coincidence that Iraqi Parliamentary Speaker visited Turkey on June 2 on an unofficial tour and the Mosul surrendered to the ISIS on June 10 by the speaker’s brother Esil Nujayfe ?