Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki On Genesis Of War Against ISIL.

Posted on November 29, 2014 

by Jerry Alatalo

OKEEFEAlphabet Former President of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki was recently interviewed on Press TV’s “Face to Face” about ISIL, why and by whom it is supported, the effects of coalition airstrikes, the role of Iran, and other aspects of the terrorist war in Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

One more submission for “The Global 100 Questions Project” is “why hasn’t Mr. al-Maliki been interviewed on American television?” For that matter, why are so few leaders of nations interviewed on American television in general? Perhaps after reading some of Nouri al-Maliki’s interview comments then viewing the second half of his appearance, people will have a good feel for the answers to those questions.

Nouri al-Maliki: “The terrorist group (ISIL) was not created out of nothingness, but rather it was born in an extremist region and more specifically in the State of Saudi Arabia, and the region has witnessed it… That’s why when the world wants to find the roots of this event, it gets to the ideologies that has resulted in this extremism, and Saudi Arabia knows very well that this ideology, which has a kind of financial and administrative independence within itself, is now spread to all across the Muslim world”.

“This group has its own research centers, books, and it carries out research. They regard all Muslim and Islamic sects as takfiris. ISIL, no matter who created it, was used as a tool to topple the Syrian government in the first place, and it was used as a tool to execute the political plans and ideas by some countries in the region, as well as the major powers in the world. Now, the problem is, politics should not be hinged on murder, violence or hostility among Muslims in order to achieve certain goals for certain countries”.

“…and this is quite natural, this is a rule in societies, that ‘he who plays with a snake will be bitten’ and all those who were in contact with ISIL felt the bite by the group. That’s why when ISIL and al-Qaeda slipped out of control and the organizations and institutions of those countries were exposed to threats, some coalitions were formed to counter the terrorist groups. They have openly admitted that a day will come when ISIL will be fighting on the streets of London and Paris”.

“That was the time when attacks against ISIL were launched by the coalition and yet there are those who think that ISIL shouldn’t be uprooted completely, but rather it should continue its activities under control – it means keeping it under control without defusing the crisis”.

How has ISIL been funded?

“ISIL receives support from rich individuals as well as some organizations which are disguised as charity organizations. There are also some political figures who advocate sectarian ideologies and back this terrorist group. These groups funnel the funds to ISIL under the cover of charitable organizations. Certain countries also supported this group and prepared the ground for them. But I think the big chunk of the support for ISIL was provided by rich individuals with radical views and the so-called charity organizations which follow sectarian and religious ideologies”.

“This terrorist group is also supported by some countries and gets military support and arms supplies. For example, ISIL was provided with weapons in Iraq and Syria by certain countries. Or after the Qaddafi government was toppled most of the weapons which were being traded on the Libyan streets were purchased by two countries and they were sent to Iraq and Syria as well. Therefore, besides the charity organizations, some other countries which were at odds with the Syrian government also supported the ISIL”.

“They didn’t even stop the al-Nusra terrorist group which is a terrorist, heinous and criminal group, and didn’t stand in the way of other armed terrorist groups. Based on the reports those countries were receiving, they concluded that the Syrian government wouldn’t last more than two months, and they thought after the fall of the Syrian government, they would also conquer Iraq within months and they would put an end to the political system in Syria”.

 “Right from the beginning, we said that the Syrian government won’t be toppled in 2 years, 3 years or even more, and the political system in this country will remain in place. This issue has sectarian, regional, and international aspects. What’s more, no sane person would keep silent after replacing the Syrian government with Nusra criminals and their expansionist goals as well as the expansionist goals of the supporters of the terrorists”.

“For this reason, the situation in the country is still complicated after three years and it has spilled over into the other countries in a dangerous way. The developments have made them so worried that they feel their plan to topple the Syrian government is threatening their own organizations”.

“The Iraqi army failed to defeat ISIL, but political differences led to the collapse of the Iraqi army in such a way that Mosul fell without any armed conflict. If the armed forces has fought with ISIL, they could defeat the group as well as its supporters. But political opposition parties spread rumors and labeled the Iraqi army as the Safavid army, sectarian army, or the Maliki army and they called on people to rise up against this army or abandon it”.

“Therefore, when these issues were raised by a few domestic and foreign parties, the Iraqi army didn’t fight in Mosul and it retreated as it was ordered. If I knew that you’d raise this question, I would bring some documents and evidence in which the feuding political sides had emphasized that in case of an ISIL attack, the army should retreat. The opposition make up about 35 to 40 percent of the army in Mosul. Usually when five to ten percent of an army retreats, it will fall apart. I don’t want to get into the details, but according to the commanders in that unit, about ninety percent of the army retreated”.

 “The Iraqi army dissolved like salt in water”.

“This army didn’t fall apart because it didn’t have enough powers, but the armed forces laid down their arms and left the battlefield because of some political orders. That’s what happened in Mosul. This plot was to be implemented in other parts of Iraq as well, because it was a major plan to topple the system. In some regions such as Diyala, Samarra, and the areas in the vicinity of Baghdad, there were cases of retreat and some commanders who had sectarian mindset had ordered the soldiers to retreat, and had told the soldiers that ‘everything is over’ “.

“However, we made an emergency decision to form popular militias and replaced them with those soldiers who had fled the army. When sectarian and ethnic feelings spread into an army, the army is in its worst condition. This might also happen within a society, but when it happens to an army, it cause defeat for the army. Those who fed the sectarian thought into the army are responsible for it. In general, all over the world, when an army gets into a war, all parties support the army and put aside the differences. But it’s not the same in Iraq”.

“The army fights, but the soldiers and armed forces are exposed to accusations and in the end they sap the military personnel’s morale. I’ve tried very hard to boost their morale and support the armed forces and this support led to major victories in 2008 and 2010 and restored relative order and stability to Iraq. There were some other plots which were based on sectarian ideology. But with the grace of God, we managed to help form the popular militias and make up for the loss to protect Baghdad. They were talking about the fall of Baghdad”.

“But we stood up against their plots and we knew that some things were going to happen. I warned two and a half years ago that a black storm with sectarian ideology would enter Iraq from Syria”.

“The army was targeted by the sectarian ideology and religious differences and there was no way other than forming the popular militias. Thank God it worked, and thank God we moved forward to support Baghdad, Diyala, Tuz Kharmato, and Amerli. This operation was going on and, thank God, the popular militias along with the army gained numerous victories against ISIL”.

“As I have said, Iraq will be the graveyard for ISIL. I have no doubts that we’ll get back every inch of the Iraqi soil from ISIL. The terrorists are defeated every day and they flee from one place to another”.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey support for ISIL?

“For sure, those countries have stood by the terrorist groups in Syria and supported them by putting pressure on the Arab League, and the international community and the United Nations Security Council. And they were thinking that toppling the Syrian government is a victory for an axis with deeply sectarian policies. If we want to discuss the role of these countries, we have to start with the position of these countries on Syria. The terrorists and their weapons were infiltrated into Syria from all over the world. These countries facilitated the influx of terrorists, ammunition, and weapons to the Syrian territory”.

“…Turkey got involved in many problems in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. I hope Turkey will take the entire region into consideration. I hope after all the unrest and hostilities, a real resolution will emerge from the (regional) heads of state to stop the fire”.

Speaking about Iran, Nouri al-Maliki noted: “Iran has had a crucial role in the survival of the region, and I hope those efforts to establish, maintain, and advance positive ties between the regional countries will continue. Iran has paid a heavy price to prevent plans to divide the region; to destroy the region”.

He said about Israel: “It is in the interest of Israel to break up the region and dissolve Syria and Iraq into three smaller countries”.

On U.S./coalition airstrikes, al-Maliki admits they have been of some help but do not possess the capacity to end the conflict. According to Nouri al-Maliki, the only forces which have that capacity are the Iraqi army and the popular militias.

Is it fair to suggest that those – no matter their high political position or extreme wealth – who have and continue to support the truly barbaric crimes of ISIL are war criminals and should become identified then brought before the International Criminal Court?

****

(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)

Advertisements

92-Year-Old Filmmaker: “See Through This Sham, Before It’s Too Late.”

Posted on September 12, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

oneness2Haskell Wexler is a 92-year-old Academy Award winning cinematographer, filmmaker, and journalist. He was a guest commentator on Democracy Now on September 12, 2014, speaking about his experience with the late journalist James Foley while Mr. Wexler was filming “Four Days in Chicago” in 2012. “Four Days in Chicago” covers the anti-NATO demonstrations in that American city in 2012, when NATO held its annual meeting there.

Mr. Wexler wrote a highly critical statement on his Facebook page about the using of James Foley’s name to promote war:

“For the president to use Jim Foley’s name and other journalists as reason to pursue the stated military policy to ‘degrade and destroy the Islamic State so that it is no longer a threat’ is an insult to the memory of James Foley and to the intelligence of the American people”.

Mr. Wexler provided Democracy Now with some footage of “Four Days in Chicago”, and his discussions from 2012 with James Foley are worthy of consideration. James Foley spoke about being an embedded with the military journalist and how this becomes an issue with regard to journalists’ ability to separate their developed sense of brotherhood and camaraderie – because of the large amount of time spent with soldiers – and remaining true to the objectivity needed for effective journalism work.

Haskell Wexler: “The one thing that you mentioned, the feeling of brotherhood… that particular feeling could be used for good things, you know”.

James Foley: “Right”.

Haskell Wexler: “We should look out for one another, feel for one another, and that’s… the army needs that, so do human beings”.

James Foley: “It is sad, because some of the strongest bonds amongst young men is giving your life for your brother, but to what end are we… To what end is the greater purpose? Guess that’s the root question of NATO, right?, whenever we fight these wars”.

Amy Goodman asked Haskell Wexler why he spoke out:

“Amy, I’m pissed off. I am angry. I see how the American public is being confused, lied to, and given theater to make us buy that war is the way to have peace. And to use a journalist like James Foley, who was truly a journalist who wants to search for the truth, and actually was amongst them, and volunteered to work with my film group in Chicago – which was documenting an anti-NATO demonstration.”

“In fact, he himself took a camera, and I have 30 minutes of film of him talking to people in Chicago. So he was not a person detached, (but an) objective journalist. He realized that our foreign policy is destructive, when we have a humanitarian crisis that hurt him deeply; that he saw in Syria. Funny thing is, the government knew what his position is, with all the surveillance, wasn’t on just students in Chicago who were opposing NATO and the war, the taking of their computers.”

“…When, if they didn’t know before, when James Foley took a camera to work with me and my fellow Chicago filmmakers – and an anti-NATO film, there’s no question what side of the fence he’s on. The government functions on ‘you’re either 100% for us, or you’re the enemy’. And that’s why a lot of our discussions in other interviews, was Jim talking about the other, how authorities can establish who the other is, and once they’re other they’re less than human, they’re less than smart, and you can do anything to them because you have to teach them a lesson.”

“So, for them to use him as a ‘poster boy’ for more violence is obscene, and I think that the country has to know it’s obscene”.

After being asked by Ms. Goodman for any final thoughts, Haskell Wexler responded:

“Well, my final thoughts for today is that the government, that is our military government – and I’m saying that it’s far more deeply militaristic than we can even imagine – that our government is going to do whatever it’s going to do. It’s certainly shown that about Syria. But, they have to develop new theatric events to make it look like something good, you know, dropping bombs, then humanitarian aid as a public thing; is today the new policy”.

“So, I think we have to know how the forces are, and to realize there’s plenty in this country who’ll see through this sham, before it’s too late”.

In his address to the American people, US President Barack Obama failed to include some very important details. First, the United Nations’ rules contain language calling for UN Security Council approval for military actions where there is no imminent threat to the initiator country or countries. Second, the US Constitution calls for Congressional approval for war. Without Security Council approval the US would be violating international law. Without Congressional approval, the Obama administration would be taking military actions outside the boundaries of constitutional law.

Articles have become published which point out that the Obama administration is interpreting the law passed shortly after 9/11 which gave the George W. Bush administration approval to conduct military operations against al Qaeda, because the law approved actions against nations, groups, or persons who were responsible for the 9/11 events on September 11, 2001. The Obama administration is apparently pointing to that law, because, they contend, ISIL is an “offshoot” of al Qaeda, therefore the current military actions are legal and do not need Congressional approval.

Other articles, news reports, and talk programs have included analysis which asserts the goal of the Obama administration is in effect Plan B for overthrowing the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. One year ago, the United States was very near to carrying out a bombing campaign in the same style as the one carried out against Libya in 2011 that resulted in the death of long-time Libyan leader Gaddafi. Libya is today in chaos.

When Barack Obama addressed the nation days ago, he announced he would be seeking $500 million for arming so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition fighters, and that the US along with its coalition partners would attack ISIL “wherever they are”. “Wherever” is a word which denotes no limits on location so, because Obama used such language, men and women could logically assume that US drones and fighter jets will enter Syrian airspace to conduct bombing campaigns against ISIL.

The Syrian government has issued announcements about US military airstrikes within the boundaries of Syria done without consent from the Syrian government. Airstrikes inside Syrian borders without agreement by Syria’s government would be violations of clearly written international laws. The situation in the Middle East, particularly with regard to the US, ISIL, Obama’s address to the American people, the beheading of two American journalists, last September’s failed attempt to attack Syria, plus a number of other circumstances, raises two important questions.

Is humanity seeing the United States and Barack Obama’s administration “Plan B” becoming implemented for the overthrow of Syria’s pan-Arab leader Bashar al-Assad? When Haskell Wexler said, “…that our government is going to do whatever it’s going to do. It’s certainly shown that about Syria. But, they have to develop new theatrical events to make it seem like something good…”, was Mr. Wexler describing a Plan B? Unfortunately, 92-year-old Haskell Wexler’s interview on Democracy Now ended after he said, “I think we have to… realize there’s plenty in this country who’ll see through this scam, before it’s too late”.

Was his use of the words “before it’s too late” describe how necessary is humanity’s rising and repeating last year’s powerful worldwide opposition which prevented an American, British, NATO air bombing campaign on Syria? And finally, Haskel Wexler said in this interview, “I see how the American public is being confused, lied to, and given theater to make us buy that war is the way to peace”.  One could say the “theater” last September was the “false flag’ chemical attacks where Syrians died, and this current “theater” is about using murdered American journalists.

The difference between last September’s theater and this year’s theater – in the minds of those who want to stop a Middle East pan-Arab movement in its tracks by attacking Syria and overthrowing the pan-Arab, Nasserite, Bashar al-Assad government – will result in manipulating the perceptions in Americans’ minds and diminish opposition to war on Syria – opposition last September being 91% against war on Syria.

So, the greatest question now for the American people is directly related to the idea 92-year-old Haskell Wexler ended his interview speaking to:

Will the American people see through this scam, before it’s too late? 

****

(Thank you to Haskell Wexler at YouTube)

For Creating The Best Possible World, Truth Is Prerequisite.

Posted on September 6, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“The facts fairly and honestly presented; the truth will take care of itself.”

– WILLIAM ALLEN WHITE (1868-1944) Editor, Emporia Gazette

Book11Before touching on some of the revelations by Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett, just a few words of appreciation for what they do. Both these men were at one point in their lives university professors in Minnesota and Wisconsin respectively, so people are sure they use long-developed academic discipline in their writing and radio work. Most appreciated is that Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Barrett – because of the potential personal risk inherent in the kinds of investigations they undertake, then report on – possess a sense of morality, courage, and personal integrity rarely seen in America.

Not being a student/expert of their journalistic work and history – but having a moderate familiarity with it – one can only guess at what philosophical or spiritual foundation(s) each man uses as a motivating force. If one spent a good deal of time researching their years of writings and radio programs, those foundations would most likely become clearer. Absent that level of research, it seems safe to say the philosophical/spiritual foundations of both men are good, illustrated by a years-long effort to overcome lies with truth and then communicating that truth to the people.

Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett are the professors people wish they had when attending university; the rare ones who tell their students the truth instead of “playing it safe”, while risking their academic careers in the process. What does it say about institutions of higher learning when professors become constrained from speaking the truth to students, through writings, on the media, or even recently – on Facebook? Such a somewhat censored state of higher learning literally defeats the fundamental and noble goal of education: the greatest intellectual exploration of ideas, facts, and history on the road to potential new concepts which are evolutionary and superior to the old.

In a real sense, Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett are most certainly still teachers, although of a slightly different form. One could say the difference between the time they spent in traditional university/academia, and now, is that now there are no longer existent any constraints on their freedom to speak truth. One could say the difference between educational institutions which continue constraining professors’ speaking the truth and the independent media/internet – of which Mr. Fetzer, Mr. Barrett, and perhaps billions of others fully take part in – is that independent media/internet offers a far greater opportunity for “maximum intellectual exploration of potential new concepts”.

Revealing the truth is prerequisite

A perfect analogy to the work of Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett is the computer programmer. Programmers write the thousands of lines of code in particular computer language (perhaps millions of lines), then “test” the software/program to make sure there are no “bugs” indicating errors made by the programmer(s) before implementing the program in “real-time”. If “bugs” remain after the problem code becomes discovered, corrected, then re-tested – and there still remains any “bugs” – the corrective action becomes repeated until the program is completely “bug-free” and ready to use in real-time applications.

The lies which Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Barrett unveil are analogous to computer software “bugs”. In a very real sense, their discovery of the truth surrounding world events is as necessary to create the best possible world as is correcting “bugs” in computer software to create error-free, smoothly operating systems for personal or business end-users. Lies coming from the media or governments can simply be described as obstacles/roadblocks to creating the best possible world for everyone, and for that precise reason people around the Earth like Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, and millions of others who show the truth are indispensable.

Some of the issues covered by Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Barrett on their September 4 weekly radio program include ISIS’ beheadings of two journalists, NATO’s response to ISIS, a new book about the 2001 anthrax scare, West Africa Ebola outbreaks and their proximity to oil/gas discoveries there, the “missing” 11 Libyan airliners, a 9/11 digital billboard on New York’s Times Square, NSA whistleblower Bill Binney’s call for a new 9/11 investigation, NIST’s withholding of 1,000 hours of WTC 9/11 phone and radio recordings, an ex-CIA official’s call for Vladimir Putin’s assassination, the death of a Brazilian presidential candidate in a plane crash, and more.

Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth were behind the digital billboard in New York (across from the New York Times) which will become viewed by millions of commuters and tourists each week. The image will show 47-story Building 7 – the “smoking gun” of 9/11, which was never mentioned in the Official 9/11 Commission Report – collapse into its own “footprint”, a sure indicator of controlled demolition. So, the billboard will show Building 7’s collapse again, and again, and again, and again, and again – 24/7/365 around the clock.

In the spirit of intellectual exploration focused on discovering the truth, all viewpoints, opinions, corrections, and/or confirmations on any of these issues are sincerely welcomed – without constraints, censorship, or preference.

For those who get their news and information about world events from the mainstream/corporate media, the issues and views discussed by Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett will most likely come as a shock. Those who’ve decided long ago to end obtaining their news/information about world events from mainstream/corporate media will understand without surprise what Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Barrett are revealing (teaching).

The differences in perception on world events between the former group and the latter – if such great perceptual contrast persists – represent the difference between continuation of the status-quo on Earth, and realizing humanity’s creation of the best possible world.

****

(Thank you to noliesradio at YouTube)

United Nations Achieves, Yet Far From Realizing Potential.

Posted on August 16, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

ocean33If the United Nations (UN) had reached the full potential it’s capable of before Colin Powell presented false allegations resulting in the Iraq War, the effort to fully confirm his assertions would have been undertaken and proven Mr. Powell’s claims false, and the Iraq War would have never occurred. The United Nations organization has great potential, chiefly its yet-to-become realized capacity for bringing all member states to the table of absolute truth.

In order for the UN to reach that great potential by building a global “table of absolute truth”, the focus of the organization should be on creating conditions where dialogue/discussion of issues become organized in ways that go a great deal further, and much more in-depth, than has been the case. Historically, United Nations dialogue and communications between member states have fallen short of achieving the qualities of completeness, full exposure of all relevant facts, views, and circumstances, and resulted in less-than-ideal understanding; less-than-ideal proposals and actions becoming implemented and taken.

The word truncated comes to mind when stressing UN potential, precisely descriptive of member states ambassadors’ discussions which become “shortened by cutting”, thereby preventing, at times, the “going all the way” to practical, fact-based, reasonable solutions. The recent UN Security Council (UNSC) passage of Resolution 2170, calling for condemnation of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its acts of terrorism, presents an excellent example of the UN’s at times truncated status.

In an interview after UNSC Resolution 2170 passed, Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Ja’afari shared his perceptions about the meeting. He spoke to the Security Council during that meeting, and asked why his nation’s continuous warnings about the same terrorist groups attacking Syria over the last 3 1/2 years became ignored, when taking those warnings seriously years ago would have made the recent meeting and ISIL resolution unnecessary. While Israel’s massacre of over 1,900 Palestinian people has led to worldwide opposition and calls for Israel’s leaders to face war crimes prosecution, in Syria over the last 3 1/2 years an estimated 160-200,000 have lost their lives.

Mr. Ja’afari believes the UNSC reacts to terrorism on a selective basis, once again noting the non-reaction to Syria’s repeated concerns about terrorism over the past 3 1/2 years. He sees Resolution 2170 as certain member states’ addressing Western/European public opinion, instead of concern for the people of Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East. He points out that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Western/European governments have trained, supplied, and paid mercenaries from over 80 countries to fight in Syria to overthrow the government. He connects former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s use of the phrase “creative chaos” to the past 3 1/2 years of “creative terrorism” – which certain UN member states are today trying to “wash their hands of”.

Mr. Ja’afari points out that during the UNSC meeting he asked about ISIL’s selling of captured Syrian oil and gas through Turkish mediators and European buyers, specifically who was purchasing those stolen-by-ISIL resources. He notes that, at that very moment, the UNSC acting President – the British UN Ambassador – interrupted him and “truncated”/stopped the line of inquiry. Mr. Ja’afari believes the British ambassador doesn’t want citizens of Western/European nations to hear, then know, what has occurred for nearly four years related to ISIL. He reiterates his belief that Resolution 2170 has more to do with solving problems related to Western/European popular public opinion.

During a short UN press conference with the media after the UNSC meeting, Bashar Ja’afari told reporters that Britain failed to consult with either Iraq or Syria on the language of the resolution, and that neither nation’s UN ambassador was given an opportunity to share concerns with the Security Council. This treatment of Iraq’s and Syria’s UN ambassadors, in effect cutting them out of discussions and negotiations directly affecting their nations, provides an example of how the United Nations has not yet reached its promising, powerful potential.

The United Nations can improve its peacekeeping mission through recognizing the limitations of discussions which fail to place all facts, circumstances, viewpoints, and solution-focused ideas “on the table”. This suggests the need for much lengthier meetings and discussions which are intent on achieving the greatest degree possible of inclusion from every member having concerns on the issue(s) at hand. A spirit of problem-solving with the paramount quality being willingness to exhaust every effort in coming to mutually satisfactory agreement – a “whatever it takes” commonly held attitude – will place the United Nations firmly on the road leading to its highest peacekeeping potential.

When comparing protracted wars fought with bullets, bombs, and their destructive consequences to lengthy wars fought with words, facts, and ideas, reasonable men and women immediately see the wisdom in choosing the latter.

****

(Thank you to Press TV News Videos at YouTube)