Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
All images & videos protected under the Fair Use Act ;)
Music: "In the Hall of the Mountain King" by Edvard Grieg
|oil supertankers loading Iraqi crude at Ceyhan, Turkey|
|4 tankers at a time loaded, only two were listed and Iraq was paid for. This went on for years.|
Russian reconnaissance footage have shown oil is being smuggled through ISIS-held areas in Syria into Turkey day and night. There are vehicles carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon.
Vladimir Putin accused Turkey of allowing ISIS Terrorists to run a “living oil pipe” across its border as he upped the ante in the row over the downing of a Russian jet.
The Russian President said that reconnaissance footage, shared with world leaders at the G20 summit earlier this month, showed that oil was being smuggled through terrorist-held areas in Syria into Turkey “day and night”. There were “vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon”, he claimed.
Speaking after talks at the Kremlin with the French President Francois Hollande, Putin accused Ankara of false naivety over ISIS’s huge oil operation. “Let’s assume that Turkey’s political leadership knows nothing about it – it’s theoretically possible, albeit hard to believe,” he said. “There may be elements of corruption and insider deals. They should deal with it.”
Putin has gone for the jugular after the Turkish military shot down the Russian SU-24 jet after accusing it of violating its airspace during an operation in northern Syria. The incident is thought to be the first time in 50 years that a NATO member has downed a Russian plane.
Turkey is acutely sensitive to claims that it is turning a blind eye to ISIS, a view held not only by Russia but also by Western states who believe that Turkey has not done enough to prevent terrorists from slipping across its 500-mile border with Syria; timesofindia.indiatimes.com reported.
|News | 30.11.2015|
As Britain is moving toward a crucial decision on whether to launch air strikes against ISIL terrorists in Syria, analysts are warning that the move could have serious backlashes on the country in terms of public dissatisfaction and national security threats.
Reza Nadim, a political commentator from London, told Press TV that the chances for Britain to get militarily involved in Syria are high, but emphasized that any potential military campaign against ISIL in Syria will to the same degree lead to a rise in public dissatisfaction in Britain.
“The British government has tried to manipulate the Paris terror attacks to justify having more air strikes (on ISIL),” Nadim said.
Nevertheless, he warned that military strikes that are launched in the name of fighting the ISIL will occasionally take heavy tolls on the civilians.
“They are going to hit children, they are going to hit women, they are going to hit people,” he said.
“We are going to have to see a lot more deaths. We are going to see a lot more refugees and a lot more refugees,” Nadim said, adding that this will eventually help the ISIL with its recruitment efforts for new terrorists.
He further expressed concern that Britain could soon find itself at major security risks as a result of waging a direct war on ISIL terrorists.
“For Britain to go and attack ISIL is inviting more problems on [Britain’s] shores,” said Nadim. “We have to remember that when the Paris attacks happened ISIL said the reason they were doing this was a response to France’s air strikes in Syria.”
He emphasized that military action will not solve the Syrian crisis, adding that the world needs to find a political solution to end the atrocities that are taking place in the country.
Clive Hambidge, a London-based political commentator, told Press TV that the fate of any decision to launch air strikes on ISIL terrorists in Syria hangs in the balance.
This, Hambidge said, is because that there are serious splits inside the Labour party – that has been traditionally opposing any new military involvement in the Middle East – over the issue.
He warned that Britain is at risk of security threats by the ISIL as does France and other European countries that are fighting ISIL.
Hambidge further emphasized that Britain needs to promote moderate Muslims to approach radical Islamists to discourage them from committing acts of violence.
This channel, he said, will be destroyed if Britain starts a military campaign against ISIL in Syria.
Hambidge also said the fate of any potential call by France on NATO to adopt a unified action against ISIL is still similarly unclear.
This, he said, is due to the military presence of Russia in Syria.
On the other hand, there have been suggestions that the downing of the Russian plane was not the work of Turkey and was perpetrated by the CIA, Hambidge added.
“So the situation is very, very complicated.”
Mark Anthony France, the local organizer of the Momentum activist movement in Birmingham, told Press TV that Cameron’s push to launch military strikes against the ISIL is due to “domestic political reasons”, stressing that the prime minister’s agenda is not based on “any genuine concern for the victims of Paris terror attacks”.
Anthony emphasized that Britain lacks the adequate military capability to create any significant change on the ground against ISIL in Syria.
“I think the British military capacity is simply not there and this is more about domestic politics, the desire to isolate the anti-war leadership of the British Labour party,” he said.
“Cameron wants to have a war so that he can reap the political advantages that come from launching the wars as did the late prime minister Margaret Thatcher through war in the Falkland Islands in 1982.”
Anthony accused the British political leadership of “cynically seizing upon the public anger” that emerged after Paris terror attacks to press ahead its own agenda.
Nevertheless, he warned that this could result in a backlash given that the British people have learned from the experiences of previous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“The reality is that people understand that the lengthy campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to make Britain more secure as a nation,” said Anthony.
He added that intelligence reports have already established a link between the British involvement in wars in the two countries with the London terrorist attacks in 2005.
Anthony further warned that if Britain decides to launch any military action in Syria, it will expose itself to potential future terrorist attacks by ISIL.
“He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction,” an unclassified note from the FBI archive read.
These “first-strike” plans developed by the Pentagon were aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United States.“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly,” remarked American scholar J.W. Smith (“The World's Wasted Wealth 2”).
For a long period of time the only obstacle in the way of the US' massive nuclear offensive was that the Pentagon did not possess enough atomic bombs (by 1948 Washington boasted an arsenal of 50 atomic bombs) as well as planes to carry them in. For instance, in 1948 the US Air Force had only thirty-two B-29 bombers modified to deliver nuclear bombs.The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition, the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign against the USSR to win a “complete victory” over the Soviet Union together with the European allies. According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.