Sic transit Zbig

Zbigniew Brzezinski died last night.

Romans used to speak no ill of the dead. Not being Roman, and having lost my country in part due to Brzezinski's delusions of Empire, I'll speak my mind instead.

I once called him the "Sith Lord of the Democratic foreign policy cult," with Mad Madeleine Albright his dark apprentice. I stand by those words.

The Polish-born Brzezinski was precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against. He worked his entire life to bend his new country to the service of his old, and harness its power to the carriage of his personal affections and animosities.

In the course of this pursuit, he urged President Carter to back a jihad in Afghanistan - not after the Soviet Union sent in the troops, but months before - indeed, hoping to provoke a "Soviet Vietnam." He admitted this in the 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur.

Asked if he regretted anything, Brzezinski said no:

"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

Asked if he regrets giving "arms and advice to future terrorists," Brzezinski was likewise nonplussed.

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

What did any of it have to do with the United States of America, though?

John Quincy Adams, a founder's son, a diplomat, and the sixth president in his own right, famously said his country "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

What, then, should we make of someone who came to America and used it to unleash head-chopping barbarians - whether Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any "moderate" flavor in between, from Bosnia to Borneo - on the world, in pursuit of Old Continent grudges and interests?

Not only did Zbigniew Brzezinski do evil - and made America do evil too - he argued it was doing good instead.

May God have mercy on his soul.

'Drive them out': Trump sends message to Muslims on terrorism

I am far from the only one to make the observation that the mainstream media in the US are in throes of the Trump Derangement Syndrome - a mutation, if you will, of the Putin Derangement Syndrome diagnosed a decade back - and treating everything the 45th POTUS does with alarm and contempt irrespective of what it is, simply because he is the one doing it.

Thus the headlines about his trip to Saudi Arabia are filled with nitpicking about one particular phrase he didn't say, the multi-billion weapons deal with a country the media suddenly discovered was waging a war on Yemen (having not given a damn about said war before January 20, 2017), and obsessing about his daughter and son-in-law yet again.

FULL SPEECH: President Trump delivers speech to Muslim leaders in Saudi Arabia https://t.co/62boIRKJsT pic.twitter.com/xY6SABYcsy

— The Hill (@thehill) May 21, 2017

Therefore I was surprised to see The Hill post a full transcript of Trump's speech, and even more surprised to read what was in it:

America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership—based on shared interests and values—to pursue a better future for us all.

[...]

Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples.

With God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed. At the same time, we pray this special gathering may someday be remembered as the beginning of peace in the Middle East—and maybe, even all over the world.

But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it.

[...]

There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.

Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.

Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.

[...]

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.

This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.

This is a battle between Good and Evil.

[...]

But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.

It is a choice between two futures—and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.

A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.

DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and

DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.

[...]

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.

[...]

Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.

So much for him being 'Islamophobic' or 'bowing down' to terrorism.

And while he accused Iran of being the ultimate sponsor of terrorism - disingenuous in the least, because it's Iran and Hezbollah doing a lion's share of fighting against ISIS, which the previous US government tacitly endorsed as a way to "regime change" in Syria - that makes it doubly hard for the Gulf Arabs to disregard his message, seeing as how they've been harping about "Iranian aggression" for years.

And if they do shrug off his offer (which I suspect they will), that just makes it clear which side they are on. After decades of pretending the problem didn't exist, finally, some clarity.

Christmas in Aleppo

The Atlantic Empire tried everything - from recycling Bosnian War lies about starving civilians and a million "last hospitals" to weaponizing a 7-year-old girl - to save its proxy jihadists in Aleppo.

It failed.

Syria's largest city was officially liberated on December 22, after the last of the jihadists ("moderate rebels" in Westernspeak) were evacuated to Idlib or Turkey. Of the devastated hospitals, there wasn't a trace. Nor was there any inkling of the "massacres" the alarmed Western ambassadors spoke of; rather, their "democratic" Islamist proxies had slaughtered all of their prisoners, lest they testify of the true horrors under their rule.

Western-backed Jihadist rebels summarily executed over 100 hostages before leaving east Aleppo https://t.co/UiPsXxMsV6

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) December 23, 2016

Liberators also found warehouses full of food, hoarded by the jihadists. Not surprisingly, the number of people actually living in the jihadist-held area was vastly overestimated: not 250,000, but 40,000 - including some 4,000 militants and their families.

With the "moderate" head-choppers routed, their "plan B" brethren at ISIS have taken initiative. ISIS attacked Tadmur (Palmyra) and Deir-ez-Zor - both held by the Syrian Arab Army - and inflicted heavy casualties at Turkish armored forces attempting to take Al-Bab, northeast of Aleppo. Oddly enough, ISIS seems to be ignoring the advance of the US-backed Kurds towards their "capital" in Raqqa. Very peculiar, that.

The Syrian War is not over, but Aleppo will surely be its turning point. With the new government poised to take over in the US next month, Washington may drop the pretense it can use jihadists as a weapon and leave ISIS and the "moderates" to either sue for peace or achieve the martyrdom they so desire.

Either way, it's Christmas in Aleppo. 

Aleppo's small Catholic minority are preparing the Saint Elias Cathedral for its first Christmas mass in five years
By @AFP pic.twitter.com/jnXOyv2RR4

— Yusha Yuseef (@MIG29_) December 23, 2016

Deir ez-Zor was no accident

I'm going out on a limb with this - and note that this in no way represents anything but my own, personal opinion - but today's airstrike that killed 62 and injured 100 Syrian soldiers outside of Deir ez-Zor was not an accident. Here's why.

First, the US-led "international coalition" has not previously operated in this area. Though the city is under siege by Islamic State (ISIS), it's an enclave held by the Syrian Arab Army (aka "Assad regime forces" for you mainstream media viewers). There are no US-backed "moderate rebels" anywhere near.

Secondly, the US reaction. The official line is that this was "unintentional." I may have bought that if the strike was conducted solely by F-16s flying at a high altitude, but A-10s are ground-attack planes that can get in low and close. They should have known they were striking a Syrian Army base - especially if they had intelligence on the area, which they say they did.

Now, note the Central Command statement on the incident:

“Syria is a complex situation with various military forces and militias in close proximity, but [the] coalition would not intentionally strike a known Syrian military unit.” 

Not only does the excuse not apply to this particular area, but "would not" does not mean "did not."  

But they put up a monument to Hillary, so it's OK

Remember the Islamic State "kill list" of some 1,300 US government employees - with their credit card records and Social Security numbers obtained by hackers some months ago? No?

While the DNC and its satellite press were in throes of hysteria about "Russian" hackers (based on the completely unproven assertion of a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, naturally), it emerged that the hacker who obtained the list was one "Ardit Ferizi, an ethnic Albanian who was raised in Kosovo."

Now, forgive me for bringing this up nine days after McClatchy named Ferizi, but I was in Cleveland and then in Philadelphia, reporting from the coronations - erm, conventions - of both major parties. While in Philly, I heard no mention of this hack, or who was behind it - or "Kosovia" for that matter - from Hillary Clinton's camp.

I mean, why would I? Albanians are a great shining example that "America is great because America is good," according to the Clintonites, who persevere in the lie that Hillary inspired Bill to intervene against the (nonexistent) Serbian "aggression and genocide" in 1999. And look, the grateful Albanians have erected a gilded statue of Bill in the "Kosovian" capital, and just recently a bust of Hillary in an Albanian seaside resort. Completely unrelated to the prospect of her becoming the Empress, of course.

Even the New York Times (perpetually shilling for Empire) can no longer pretend that "Kosovia" is not an ISIS hotbed - though they throw Saudi Arabia under the proverbial bus for that, because Social Justice forbid they blame the Clintons. But the mainstream media that either made up or justified ever single vicious lie about the Kosovo War will never allow you to add the two and two. You hear hacking, you're not supposed to think "Kosovians" and ISIS and gross carelessness or criminal negligence - no, you're supposed to scream "RUSSIANS," just like the DNC-coached media operatives.

I mean, who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or CNN?

Karadzic and the dogs of war

In July 2008, after the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, Brendan O'Neill wrote an article that provided the crucial missing piece to the puzzle of how the Atlantic Empire has interacted with jihadists: Bosnia.

Pointing out that America armed and trained a military machine that was using Mujahideen as "shock troops," O'Neill reminds us of the striking parallels between the positions of Al-Qaeda militants and "liberal hawks in newsrooms across America and Europe":

Indeed, many of the Mujahideen who fought in Bosnia were inspired to do so by simplistic media coverage of the sort written by liberal-left journalists in the West. Many of the testimonies made by Arab fighters reveal that they first ventured to Bosnia because they "saw US media reports on rape camps" or read about the "genocide" in Bosnia and the "camps used by Serb soldiers systematically to rape thousands of Muslim women." Holy warriors seem to have been moved to action by some of the more shrill and unsubstantiated coverage of the war in Bosnia.

Both Western liberals and the Mujahideen ventured to Bosnia in response to their own crises of legitimacy, and in search of a sense of purpose, O'Neill argues, citing a number of sources. The Serbs provided a convenient enemy to project all their pent-up frustration, anger and hatred onto.

"For both Western liberals (governments and thinkers) and the Mujahideen, Bosnia became a refuge from these harsh realities, a place where they could fight fantasy battles against evil to make themselves feel dynamic and heroic instead of having to face up to the real problems in their movements and in politics more broadly."

Both Western imperialists and Islamic jihadists became "super-moralized, militarized, internationalized" in Bosnia, as a result of their struggle against the "evil Serbs." Today, the Empire and its allies accuse Russia of "revisionism" but it was they who chose to trample international law and the existing order by inventing "humanitarian" wars and "responsibility to protect," reviving "coalitions of the willing" 200 years after Napoleon.

As for the Islamists, they went internationalist, spreading the message of jihad everywhere - fueled by Washington's wars, no less - from Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings to 9/11 and Brussels just this week.

O'Neill says Karadzic has much to answer for. I'll accept that. But he also says that the demonization of Karadzic and the Serbs, and the resulting "rehabilitation of both Western militarism and Islamic radicalism, has also done a great deal to destabilize international affairs and destroy entire communities." Just ask the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, Kurds...

Which brings me to a point I've been making here for years. I find it utterly disgusting that the same people who howl in outrage over the "genocide in Srebrenica" never seem to realize - or perhaps don't care - that "Srebrenica" has been used to justify the deaths of a million Muslims, and maybe more, in Western "humanitarian interventions" since 9/11. 

Libya, 5 years later

It's been five years since the Atlantic Empire "liberated" Libya - turning the once prosperous North African nation into a jihadist hellhole. The very same governments that conspired to overthrow the regime of Col. Gadhafi in 2011 now bemoan that Libya is becoming a sanctuary for Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists.

Oh? You mean the Western "estrogen-driven paternalism on steroids" (as my friend Ilana Mercer so aptly described it) didn't result in a liberal-democratic republic based on diversity and human rights? I'm shocked.

Back in September 2011, when the Empire was basking in its "victory" in Libya, I went on CrossTalk to argue that the intervention was wrong on principle. The relevant passage is about 14 minutes in:

"This is no way to run the world. You can’t run a dog-catching operation like this without it backfiring... What we saw happening in Libya was basically the entire circle of Balkans interventions accelerated to hyperspeed – within weeks instead of years – and you ran through the whole gamut of excuses, from refugees to mistreatment of minorities to this and that and the other, to install in power a shadowy movement that we don’t really know much about – except that it’s composed of Al-Qaeda veterans (which isn’t supposed to bother us at all). But that’s sort of not the point. It doesn’t matter how this ended. The outcome of it is frankly irrelevant. It’s the principle of the thing."

Uncivilized

Yesterday, three masked men - which the French government and media have identified as French-born Algerians - attacked the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and murdered 10 employees (deliberately targeting the magazine's cartoonists). They also killed two police officers on the scene, one of whom was reportedly named Ahmed - so, a French Muslim.

The bodies of the slain have hardly gone cold before the Narrative Wars began. For some, this was a vile act of Islamic terror, signaling the need to defend the West from jihad. Far enough - except that many of these very people have been allied with jihadists and terrorists for decades, in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia ("Kosovo" and "Sanjak"), Russia (Chechnya, Dagestan) and more recently, Libya and Syria. The way they spun it, these were the "good" jihadists, attacking the "enemies" of the West - you know, those folks who refused to submit to demands for unconditional surrender of their independence, economies, values, societies, faiths and traditions to the bankers, market speculators and the false god of Multiculturalism.

In other words, I'll believe the West is fighting against the jihad when I see it.

A Bomb and ISIS Show

Despite the ongoing air attacks of the Empire and its Gulf Vassals, it appears the ISIS Caliphate forces are advancing on Baghdad. Meanwhile, Iraqi helicopter pilots "mistakenly" directed food and ammo drops to ISIS forces, rather than their own. These supposedly inept and inexperienced pilots were trained by the Empire. Draw your own conclusions...

Cartoon by Jeff Danziger (source)

There is a thick fog of disinformation out there concerning this "Islamic State", ISIS, ISIL, Caliphate, or whatever it is. A week ago, we had to suffer through the Emperor personally chairing the UN Security Council meeting on the greatest-ever-threat of Islamic-but-unrelated-to-Islam terrorism, complete with calls for criminalizing volunteers who fight in foreign wars - so long as they fight against the Empire, anyway. Empire's proxies, clients and quislings are obviously exempt.

Yet it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that ISIS arose from the fertile soil of Imperial support for a rebellion in Syria against the Assad government, launched back in 2011. For all the talk of "moderates" and "democrats for human rights," it was the jihadists who had the will and skill to use those planeloads of arms the Empire provided via Croatia and Jordan.

There are even some who claim that the Imperial government created ISIS deliberately. If true, it wouldn't be the first time: Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted of setting off the Afghan jihad in order to provoke a Soviet intervention. But I am loath to give the Imperial government any more credit than it actually deserves. Having witnesses its appalling incompetence in a range of affairs on a daily basis, why would anyone believe it is somehow a genius international manipulator?

More likely, this is all perception management again. ISIS arose from the idiotic policy of backing the jihadists in Syria (and in general), but hey - we can spin it as a retroactive justification of the Iraq invasion, and a fresh new terrorist threat that will justify new strip-searches and snooping while making Barack the Blessed look more presidential. A win-win!

Spin, that's how all of this works. On one hand, acts of puppetry like the Kiev coup or the Hong Kong protests are presented as "spontaneous", while on the other hand, genuine disasters, blowbacks and fiascoes stemming from Empire's ignorant belligerence are spun as parts of some brilliant grand strategy - thus furthering the illusion that the Atlantic Empire is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-competent, though in reality it is none of those things.

Beslan Remembered

September 1, 2004: first day of school in Beslan, in the Russian Federation's Republic of North Ossetia. Hundreds of children, parents and teachers were trapped by Western-backed jihadists in Elementary School #1, stripped to their underwear, and held hostage for almost three days.

When Russian security forces attempted to rescue the hostages, the terrorists began the killing they had planned all along: 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children. Only one of the terrorists was captured alive; he is serving a life sentence in a Russian prison, unrepentant.

"Memory Wall" at the School Number One (source)

Beslan was the beginning of the end for jihadists in Chechnya. One by one, jihadists leaders were hunted down and killed: Shamil Basayev, who ordered the attack, died in an explosion in 2006. Today, Chechens under Ramzan Kadyrov are some of the most fiercely loyal Russian citizens.

But those who backed the Chechen jihad have neither been forgotten, nor forgiven.

The East Remembers.

"Kosovian" Suicide Bomber Behind Baghdad Attack

Serbian national television RTS reported earlier today that the March 25 suicide bombing in Baghdad was the work of Blerim Heta, a "Kosovian" Albanian. This, they say, is the first confirmed instance of any Balkans jihadist taking part in a suicide attack; there have been reports of Bosnian Muslims doing so in Iraq, but none could be corroborated.

Screenshot of the RTS report

Heta is a native of Uroševac (called Ferizaj by Albanians), and his family believed he was fighting in Syria. They confirmed his death, with Blerim's father Remzi denouncing religion and claiming his family followed "European values", while his son was "seduced".

RTS further cites a report on the website of the jihadist outfit ISIL, confirming Heta's death and referring to him as "Abu Habbab al-Kosowi".

Yet the most interesting detail of Heta's biography - that he worked for the U.S. military at Camp Bondsteel, the major military base right outside of Uroševac - is mentioned only in passing. When did he work there? What was he doing? Was he fired and then turned to jihad, or the other way around? Or was he recruited there to go to Syria? Questions about, yet RTS offers no answers. Maybe someone else will.

About That Gratitude, Again

I have written before on the downright idiotic belief of the Imperial establishment that their white-knighting around the world on behalf of jihadists would result in gratitude. Except, you know, not.

In fact, there is a lengthy list of jihadists attacks perpetrated by those very "secular, modern, democratic, etc." Muslims from the Balkans the Empire has waged several wars to "save" or "liberate" - and it keeps growing.

Two commenters just sent in links to a developing story from southern Turkey. It appears that a Turkish patrol was ambushed on a highway near the Syrian border, and two soldiers and a policeman were killed. The Turks have captured three suspects, described as "two Albanians and a Kosovan [sic]" who were likely fighting the anti-government jihad in Syria. Which, by the way, Turkey has supported.

Here is a Macedonian news agency quoting the AFP quoting Turkey's Interior Minister:

Two Albanians and a Kosovan have been arrested for a suspected 'terror' attack that claimed the lives of two soldiers and a policeman in southern Turkey, Interior Minister Efgan Ala said Friday, AFP reports.

And here is that AFP story, as posted by Lebanon's Daily Star:

Two Albanians and a man from Kosovo have been arrested for a suspected "terror" attack that claimed the lives of two soldiers and a policeman in southern Turkey, Interior Minister Efgan Ala said Friday.

The three men were arrested after Thursday's attack, in which assailants opened fire on security forces carrying out a highway patrol near the town of Ulukisla, close to the Syrian border.

"The suspects captured were two citizens of Albania and the third from Kosovo," the official Anatolia news agency quoted Ala as saying.

Albania's interior ministry, however, denied that any of those arrested were Albanian citizens.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had labelled the shooting a "vile act of terror" and said the three security officers killed were "martyrs".

Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay said the attackers had "a link with Syria", without giving further details.

Local media reported they were affiliated with militant Islamist organisations operating in Syria.

Recall that the Empire had arranged for the Syrian "rebels" to "train" with the KLA back in 2012. And there are obviously Albanian (and Bosnian) jihadists fighting for the "rebels", as reports keep coming in about many of them reaching their goal of martyrdom (i.e. getting killed). Meanwhile, Turkey has not only backed the jihad in Syria, but also the Muslims of Bosnia and the "Kosovian" Albanians in their claims on Serb territory.

Perhaps this instance of Albanian jihadists biting the hand that fed them might cause the Turks to reconsider their position, if not on the Syrian jihad then "Kosovistan." But I'm not holding my breath.

Gazing at the Abyss

The real error was believing that jihad could be harnessed, controlled and directed to achieve a strategic purpose. That belief was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 2001, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.

(9/11, 2011)

Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled.

(From Beslan to Boston, 2013)

Draw your own conclusions.

Al-Qaeda's Air Force

All the talk coming out of Washington about "red lines" and "credibility" and chemical weapons is just smoke and mirrors.

This is what it comes down to, distilled by Karl Denninger:

Al Qaida is a sworn enemy of the United States. The United States has ratified their statement of being our enemy through more than 10 years of continual declaration of a "state of emergency" citing the so-called "war on terror."

It is an act of Treason according to our Constitution to provide material aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of our nation.

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

That's all there is to it. No amount of Congressional, White House, Foggy Bottom or media lipstick can make this anything but a pig.

From Beslan to Boston

Some of my readers may remember an essay from several years ago in which I explained why I refuse to be called a journalist. Seeing the coverage of the Boston Marathon massacre only fortified me in that conviction. I hope the mainstream media that fingered the wrong suspects, even going so far as to publish their names and photos, enjoys the libel suits they so richly deserve.

There were even some who hoped (!) the suspect would be "a white American", because that would better serve their political agenda. The irony of their wish-fulfillment, after a fashion, is why I believe the universe isn't random: the suspected terrorists really were "white Americans", though only in the most technical sense. The brothers Tsarnaev came to the U.S. from Chechnya.

For those who can't tell Chechnya apart from the Czech Republic, the latter is a mostly Catholic country in central Europe, while the former is a region of Russia in the north Caucasus. A tribal society with a tradition of mountain banditry, the Chechens launched a war of independence against Yeltsin's Russia in 1991. They successfully defeated the crumbling Soviet army and established an "Islamic Republic of Ichkeria", proceeding to engage in abductions for ransom, sex slavery, drug running and terrorism. In this, they had the support of a veritable who's who of Imperial policymakers.

Following NATO's 1999 attack on Serbia, however, the mood in Moscow changed. After the Chechens tried invading the neighboring region of Dagestan, Russian troops crushed the rebellion. The jihad, however, continued.

And that's the problem. What happened in Boston was horrifying, absolutely. But it's been happening to Russians for years, and there has been not a shred of sympathy from the American political class, the media, or the (admittedly ignorant) general public. To mention just a few examples:

- October 2002, Chechen terrorists hold hostage a Moscow theater, during a popular stage play. 130 hostages die during the rescue.

- September 2004, Chechen terrorists seize and hold hostage 1100 children, teachers and parents in an elementary school in Beslan, North Ossetia. After two days of horror, most of the terrorists are killed in a rescue, but not before murdering 334 civilians, 156 of them children.

- January 2011, a jihadist belonging to the Chechen terrorist movement blows himself up at Moscow's busy Domodedovo airport, killing 37 and injuring 173.

Yet all that came from Washington were condemnations of Moscow's "human rights violations" in the Caucasus. Terrorists? Surely you jest: terrorists are only those who attack Americans.

As I commented on Ilana Mercer's blog, the Chechen identity of the bombing suspects threatens to mess with the Narrative of evil Russians (or Serbs) oppressing the good, innocent Chechens, "Bosnians" or "Kosovars." In that Narrative, Islam is a "religion of peace", and if America continues to champion Islamic causes, Muslims will be grateful and embrace democracy. Or not.

To this end, terrorism perpetrated by the "designated victims" is habitually swept under the rug. Bosnian Muslim Sulejman Talovic shoots up a Salt Lake City mall and is given a jihadist funeral, but the official investigation declares "motive unknown." Albanian Arid Uka attacks a bus of U.S. soldiers at the Frankfurt airport? Albanians "love America", the mainstream media declare. Move along, nothing to see here. A Bosnian Muslim jihadist attacks the U.S. embassy in downtown Sarajevo, and the senior State Department official brushes it off. Right on cue, I hear this morning (h/t Steve Sailer) that the New York Times ran a story pitying the poor Chechens.

Terrorism cannot be defeated. But terrorists can. The first step towards doing so is to stop enabling them, supporting them, cultivating them as a weapon against enemies real or imagined, and harboring the delusion that they can be controlled.

Tall order, I know.

Weapons to Syria: A Croatian Confessional

Much as the mainstream media would like to fudge it with talk of "former Yugoslavia", the fact that Croatian weapons have found their way to the Syrian jihadists is becoming more difficult to deny. The Croatians themselves, in fact, aren't even bothering to try. The Zagreb daily Jutarnji List (The Morning Paper) published a story on March 7, explaining where the weapons came from, who delivered them and how, and who was behind it all. The original article can be found here. My translation follows below.

Jutarnji Reveals: 
In four months, 75 airplanes with 3,000 tons of weapons departed Zagreb Pleso airport for Syria in the past four months.

By Krešimir Žabec, March 7, 2013

(Jutarnji.hr)

Between the beginning of November last year and February this year, altogether 75 civilian cargo planes departed Zagreb's Pleso airport, loaded with weapons for Syrian rebels, Jutarnji has learned from diplomatic sources. In addition to Croatian weapons, the aircraft carried weapons from other European countries, gathered in the organization of the United States of America.

According to our sources, the first two or three deliveries went via Turkish Cargo, a subsidiary of Turkish Airlines. Subsequent deliveries were made via Jordanian International Air Cargo.

Related story: NY Times on our soldiers withdrawal from Golan: "Our report compromised safety of Croat Blue Helmets"

Until recently, it was thought that a high-raking Croatian official had arranged with his American colleagues the transport of surplus Croatian arms to the Syrian rebels, which was reported by the New York Times. Reliable diplomatic sources indicate, however, that the plan to arm the Syrian rebels was part of a broader context. 

Namely, American officials had enlisted several partners - Croatia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey - to arm the opponents of the Syrian regime. The USA organized the procurement of weapons, the Saudis paid for it, and Jordan and Turkey made the deliveries, via Jordan, to Syria.

Croatia had a dual role. It supplied part of its weapons surplus, including the M79 and RPG-22 launchers, and M60 recoil-less cannon. A yet unknown quantity of those departed from Pleso in early November last year, on a Turkish A310. However, the Americans organized deliveries of weapons from several other European countries, including the UK, to Pleso, from where it was loaded into Jordanian cargo plans and sent to Syria via Jordan.

Related story: CROAT WEAPONS TRANSFERRED TO SYRIAN REBELS: Everything arranged last summer in Washington!

Thus it could be said that Pleso has been the international hub of arms deliveries to the Syrian rebels, over the course of several months. As the cargo aircraft involved were A310 and Ilyushin 76MF, it is estimated that around 3,000 tons of weapons and ammunition have been transported on 75 flights.

YouTube videos confirm that the Syrian rebels are receiving large quantities of arms and ammunition. Videos show the rebels bragging about the new weapons they have received. Western media claim that Americans and Turks have organized the weapons deliveries.

As our sources tell us, the security of the operation came into question after the Bosnian air traffic control started making inquiries about the large number of Jordanian cargo flights from Zagreb. Nor did the sudden frequency of Jordanian cargo flights go unnoticed among the Zagreb populace. Our sources indicate it isn't know exactly how many of the weapons ended up with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, as opposed to several dozen militant jihadist militias, also fighting against the Syrian regime.

Recent YouTube videos suggest that part of the weapons that came from Croatian stores ended up with the jihadist movement Ahram al-Sham. This was confirmed by their spokesman, who said they shared weapons with the Free Syrian Army.

There have also been allegations that some of the weapons that reached Syria via Zagreb have ended up with the Yarmuk Martyrs' Brigade, the jihadists who seized 30 Filipino UN peacekeepers on the Golan Heights two days ago. Afraid that the weapons might end up with militants, most Western politicians insist on keeping the EU's embargo on exports to Syria. Croatia has stated its support for the embargo, and is technically not in violation of it, since the weapons were sold to Jordan.

The entire affair has demonstrated that Croatia is a reliable partner of the United States. Washington has played a crucial role in Croatia's admission to NATO and subsequently the EU. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense is greatly supporting the Croatian Army in Afghanistan with weapons and equipment, and provides free transport to our troops that are part of the ISAF. So it is natural that Croatia, as a faithful ally, positively responded to the American request for taking part in a weapons delivery operation for Syria.

Sidebar: Josipović officially requested withdrawal of Croatian peacekeepers

President Josipović has requested parliamentary confirmation of his decision to withdraw 97 Croatian soldiers from the UN mission on Syria's Golan Heights. He justified the decision by the deteriorating security situation in the Golan, and argued that withdrawing the soldiers would remove them from danger. The Sabor is due to debate the decision in their next session, and confirmation requires a two-thirds majority. If the Sabor rejects the President's decision, the soldiers will remain in the Golan.

The withdrawal from UNDOF mission was announced last week by Prime Minister Milanović, who said it was the consequence of media reports of Croatian arms deliveries to Syrian rebels. The military command is already preparing for the withdrawal, and Defense Minister Ante Kotromanović announced the soldiers could return within a month. The retreat will be organized via Israel.

When the Drone is the Sword

I read Daniel Greenfield's "Sultan Knish" blog regularly. When he's right, he usually cuts to the very heart of the issue and his observations merit quoting. When he's wrong, however, he is very wrong - and that, too, merits quoting.

He has long been hostile towards Ron Paul, former representative in the House and presidential candidate, believing him to be hostile to Israel. This belief is misplaced. Dr. Paul is opposed to all foreign "aid" on principle, including that to Israel (but also that to, say, Egypt). Unlike most of his fellow Republicans, Paul really does believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the fundamental principles the United States were (notice the plural) founded on. And Paul is also opposed to the American Empire, which he rightly regards as antithetical to the American Republic.

But in Greenfield's latest essay, Paul is lumped with the "left" and denounced as a traitor, together with anyone who opposes Empire's foreign entanglements:

"The anti-war position automatically picks the other side and because of the innate whiff of treason in such a choice, it must justify that treason by utterly damning and demonizing its own side. It cannot afford nuance at home, though it often calls for it abroad, because to concede complexity is to endanger its own moral standing. The only thing standing between the anti-war movement and  treason is its ceaseless effort to demonize its own government, soldiers and people as monsters."

That last sentence is somewhat baffling, because I would think the demonization of one's own government, soldiers and people as monsters would not be an impediment to treason, but rather a component thereof. But Greenfield's point is nonetheless clear: anyone who argues against the American Empire is a traitor.

That is because in Greenfield's understanding, the Empire is America; the soldiers that invade, bomb and occupy across the world are "defending freedom"; and the Empire is actually fighting a rightful defensive war against Islamic jihad. Yet none of these things are true.

As I argued back in 2005:

"Being opposed to a gang of Muslim fanatics trying to re-create a VII (or XI?) century jihad with XXI-century technology did not, does not, and should not mean siding with the abomination that has murdered the American republic and possessed its cadaver. Or vice versa: just because George W. Bush and his minions have fabricated a danger that would justify their imperial adventure doesn't mean a danger does not exist. It just isn't the danger they are carping on about."

Because, you see, the Empire isn't opposed to jihad and Islam. Rather, it seeks to co-opt them for its own ends. Don't take my word for it. There's Charlie Wilson, the CIA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and here is the late Tom Lantos (D-CA):

"... just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue."

Nor can one argue that this is "leftist" policy and therefore not applicable to the Bush II era, because Lantos said this in 2007, in support of a Bush II policy. Granted, it was a policy adopted verbatim two years prior, from a Democratic challenger Bush had defeated in 2004 - the same year occupied Kosovo became a bit more "predominantly Muslim" following a pogrom of Serbs.

Seemingly absurd, no? But it is an observable fact that the "left" and the "right" are of the same mind when it comes to imperialism. And one of Empire's articles of faith is that jihad can and should be used to achieve global dominance. That is why the CIA aided the jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s; why the Empire helped create the hysteria about Bosnia in the 1990s and "Kosovia" later on; why Washington has helped overthrow secular Arab dictatorships (Hussein, Gadhafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak) in favor of militant Islam. How successful that strategy has been, one ought to ask Ambassador Stephens.

Of course, Greenfield blames Obama for Stephens' death in Benghazi, and rightly so. But he doesn't blame Obama, as he ought to, for invading Libya in the first place. I can't seem to recall any Republican who actually argued against invading Libya and replacing Gadhafi's eccentric dictatorship with a Hobbesian hodgepodge of tribal and Al-Qaeda "rule" that followed the "liberation." Stephens went to Libya to help the jihadists take over the country. By way of a thank you, the jihadists murdered him. There is a lesson therein, for those willing to learn.

What prompted Greenfield's attack on "anti-war traitors" was Ron Paul quoting Jesus (Matthew 26:52, to be precise) apropos the death of Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sniper recently murdered by a fellow veteran at a shooting range. To Greenfield, Kyle is a hero, his sniping a valiant defense of American freedom. But what Kyle actually did had nothing to do with "defending America". He was killing Iraqis in their own country. He was the aggressor and the occupier, and as if that weren't bad enough by itself, that invasion had absolutely zero to do with fighting against jihad. Zip. Zilch. Bopkess. It was also, let's remember, illegal, immoral and illegitimate by every metric - except that of power.

Thus, paradoxically, Greenfield defends the very same argument of force he opposes (and rightly so) when it comes to Islam, and within the very same essay! It amounts to "It's different when we do it," and it is the very Marxist moral relativism he continuously condemns.

By that logic, Ron Paul is a traitor for opposing the invasions of Serbia, Iraq, Libya, etc. - while those who ordered and executed the invasions, are "defending freedom". Those who invade someone else's country half the world away and support jihad (in effect if not intentionally) are patriots and heroes, while, say, the Serb soldiers, snipers or generals who defend their own country and people from jihadists are war criminals.

If pointing this out is treason, then in the immortal words of Patrick Henry, "make the most of it."

Reeker's Switcheroo

Most of my predictions about the aftermath of the incident in Sarajevo last Friday have, sadly, come to pass. The Bosnian Muslim media have indeed made an effort to describe the attacker as "Serbian", and even made claims that he was an agent of Serbian intelligence services (!) sent to stir up trouble. Ever expanding the horizons of self-delusion, I suppose.

Some agencies and papers in the West also seized upon the "Serbian" angle, but most were happy to explain away the presence of jihadists in Bosnia as "fighters for independence" that came to fight the (entirely fictitious) "Greater Serbia" plot by the evil Slobodan Milosevic (!). Once again, jihad becomes the Serbs' fault somehow.

Now, this morning, Serbia's official news agency (Tanjug) reported on a press conference given in Sarajevo by the unfortunately named Philip Reeker, deputy assistant Secretary of State. There has been no English-language coverage of it yet, so there is no way of ascertaining what Reeker precisely said and what may have been lost in translation or omitted. However, what is mentioned in Tanjug's report, which again relies on local media, tracks with what I've seen so far. Reportedly, Reeker qualified Mevlid Jasarevic's attack as an "individual act" to be treated accordingly.

If this meant it would be swept under the rug like every other jihadist attack that goes against the narrative, that would be tragic and stupid, but about par for the course. Except it gets worse.

According to Tanjug (again citing the Sarajevo media), Reeker actually argued that Bosnia should use the attention it garnered by the attack (!). Apparently, he thinks this is a wonderful opportunity for Bosnia to press on with reforms that the Empire wishes to see - changes to the Constitution and the peace agreement that would bring about a more powerful (and Muslim-dominated) central government. This is borne out by his remark about resolving the issues over military property, in order for Bosnia to join NATO.

How is that an appropriate subject for a press conference about a jihadist attack? Would Bosnia being a member of NATO have made the slightest bit of difference last Friday? As usual, there is more to this than meets the eye: at issue isn't just the property of the country's joint military forces, but what is and isn't the property of the central government. Again, nothing to do with jihadist attacks - but everything to do with Empire's fetishes and fantasies about Bosnia.

If this sounds absurd and nonsensical, do recall that when ethnic Albanians rampaged around Kosovo for three days in 2004, in a pogrom against the Serbs, this was used by the Empire as an argument to reward them with independence. So why not reward acts of jihad, especially at someone else's expense? Remember, the objective is to make jihadists love the Empire.

Yet that is about as likely as Imperial officials deciding that jhad is not a wonderful policy asset. Which is to say, not at all.

Is it Jihad Yet?

photo: Beta

This is Mevlid Jasarevic, age 23, follower of the Salafi sect of Islam, who this afternoon opened fire on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Jasarevic was subsequently shot and reportedly killed. [Clarification: Jasarevic was wounded and detained by the police.]

Because Jasarevic is from Novi Pazar, a town in Serbia, odds are the mainstream Western media will describe this as a "Serbian attack", or at least identify him as "Serbian citizen." This would be horribly misleading, of course, but that hasn't stopped them before.

Here are some things to keep in mind here, before the spin distorts them:

• Salafi missionaries came to Bosnia during the war, with tacit approval and even assistance of the U.S., to get the "wayward" Bosnian Muslims in line and wage jihad against the Serb and Croat "infidels."
• There are 150,000 or so Muslims in the Raska region of southwestern Serbia (which they call "Sanjak", a term going back to Ottoman days). Their religious leader, mufti Muamer Zukorlic, was appointed by the top Islamic cleric of Bosnia and has been stirring up trouble and preaching violence and hate for several years. In this, he enjoys the support of many foreign governments ("Friends of Sanjak"), including the U.S.
• Jasarevic may technically be a citizen of Serbia, but he is wanted there on charges of terrorism. He left Serbia last year, and settled in the Salafi commune of Gornja Maoca in northern Bosnia. Until it was ethnically cleansed during the Bosnian War, it used to be a Serb village called Karavlasi.

In addition to terrorizing any Christians (Serbs or Croats) they may come across, the Salafi frequently harass ordinary Bosnian Muslims, who by and large follow the Hanafi school of Islam. The Hanafi approach accepts local customs and is what made coexistence with Christians in the past possible in the first place. Salafists dismiss this as heresy and preach absolute intolerance of any who do not follow their ways.

Anyway, just watch: Jasarevic will be described as a lone lunatic, his motives will be "unknown", and there will be no mention of jihad or Islamic terrorism. The notion that the Salafists in Bosnia may be nurturing terrorists who threaten American lives runs counter to the mainstream narrative of innocent Muslims being victims of evil Serbs, and is therefore thoughtcrime.

Update (10/31/2011): Julia Gorin has a post up about this and other jihadist attacks, with links. Lots of links.

9/11

I remember that Tuesday morning the way I remember much of the Bosnian War: in vivid detail. The confusion, the shock, the horror of the burning and crumbling towers, the pillar of black smoke coming from the Pentagon. But the world didn't stop turning. And nothing actually changed that day.

Within weeks, the man who got into the Oval Office on a promise of a "more humble foreign policy" had launched a war without end. Except that the "War on terror(ism)" was lost before it began. U.S. policymakers have persisted in believing their own myth about the "good" terrorists (i.e. ones they could control) versus the "bad" ones (the ones that would attack America), no matter how much the terrorists themselves blurred that line, repeatedly. They even begged jihadists to like them (again)!

Eventually, the "War on Terror" became a "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism", a term signifying precisely nothing. Instead of fighting fear and terror, the Empire unleashed them upon the world. The discrepancies between reality and fantasy were discounted through perception management. The 2006 mockumentary "Borat" was supposed to have been a comedy. But when the title character enthuses about the "war of terror", it wasn't funny. It rang true.

Seven years after that fateful Tuesday, the American public knew it wasn't really involved in a war on terrorism any more, only in the protracted and pointless occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but was nonetheless invaded). The man who promised Hope and Change promised to end those wars. He hasn't delivered.

In May this year, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was killed in Pakistan. If the official version of events is to be believed (so many lies have been told about the wars, it's hard to believe anything any more), he was taken out by Seal Team Six, a special forces unit. The question that begs to be asked is, couldn't something like that have been done in the first place, without two full-scale invasions and a bunch of proxy wars? Instead, bin Laden's alleged purpose - to bleed America dry in the sands of the Muslim world - seems to have been achieved, all right.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (I'm more interested in conspiracy facts). Nor do I believe for a second that everything would have been just fine had America not "provoked" the jihadists, as some well-meaning folks think. Jihad isn't some benevolent ideology of spiritual self-fulfillment, but a religious commandment to perpetrate violence upon the infidel. Many people who call themselves Christians may not take the commandments of their faith very seriously. Rest assured, many Muslims do. The real error was believing that jihad could be harnessed, controlled and directed to achieve a strategic purpose. That belief was wrong in 1978, it was wrong in 2001, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.

It isn't quite right to say that nothing has changed since that Tuesday, ten years ago. While the government, and the thinking behind it, has remained much the same (though a different faction is in power; that ought to suggest a few things, by itself), the United States of America isn't the same country any more. I have trouble recognizing it, and I've witnessed the transformation, gradual as it was.

Whether things keep getting worse, or some day take a turn for the better, there is no going back. Panta rei.