Do you think now the world has it's eyes opened to the true horror unfolding in Syria, they will now actually do something about ISIS?

[Whoknewitcouldbeso]

I know efforts are being made by some nations to try and counteract ISIS with the aid of drones and counter intelligence but I wonder if the refugee crisis may serve to instigate some direct action by more of the World's heavyweights?

I have just read the story of how Aylan's father has traveled back to Kobane to bury his family and has no intention of leaving the country again. It is his home and he was only leaving to try and save his family after 11 of his extended family were murdered by ISIS. There has been so much talk about migrants and asylum seekers and trying to help those who are fleeing, but most of these people would not be fleeing if it wasn't for the fact that they fear for their lives.

Surely we should be doing more to make their own country safe or do you think that's not possible and the only solution is to allow the ethnic cleansing to carry on taking place.

Claig - I agree with you. But then it's never as simple as it looks, is it?

www.businessinsider.com/revealed-the-oil-middleman-between-the-syrian-regime-and-isis-2015-3?IR=T

fourmummy, I am sceptical because they have to paint Assad as the villain in order to justify that they have not ended the 4 year war that has caused hundreds of thousands of death and millions of refugees.

You have the possible next President of the United States, Donald Trump, open;ly saying that as far as he can see, Assad is better than his opponents. It is all collapsing for them and is just a matter of time until someone like Trump changes things and that is why they need to paint Assad as the villain.

They are pretending that Assad is not fighting Isis and that he is in fact funding them while Russia is bombing them on his behalf. They need to do that because everyone knows how bad Isis are and Trump is openly saying that Assad is better than the rebels, so they are painting it as if Assad is an ally of Isis, which is the opposite of the truth since reports say that Isis are being supplied via neighbouring countries.

This is what the article says

"But the rise of the jihadist movement has served Mr Assad's interests by allowing him to pose as an essential bulwark against Islamist terrorism."

It is true that Assad is teh bulwark against Islamic terrorism which is why the Christians and Druze in Syria are supporting Assad in his fight against the Islamic terrorists. But this wording gives an impression that Assad is pretending to fight Islamic terrorists for more than 4 years as his country is laid to waste. Who is Assad fighting if not the terrorists? Most reports and commentators say openly that the Free Syrian Army is ineffective and has not been able to defeat Assad. That is why the sponsors and funders have backed all of the foreign terrorists against Assad in the hope that they will achieve what the Free Syrian Army failed to achieve.

The article says

"Isil fighters captured the oilfields of eastern Syria in 2013. Since then, the regime is believed to have funded the jihadists by purchasing oil from Isil. But those links are understood to extend further than was previously thought. Instead of merely being a customer for Isil's oil, the regime is understood to be running some oil and gas installations jointly with the terrorist movement."

This is true but the impresion it may create is exaggerated. The oil and gas and power plants provide energy for many areas of Syria. Isis and the funded terrorists have captured those plants but the Isis mercenaries are not capable of running them as they are beheaders and not engineers so in order to have energy and power for their so-called phony "caliphate" they need the Syrian engineers to run the plants and the Syrian government needs these plants to operate in order to provide energy for other areas of Syria that the terrorists have not yet captured, so they have come to an arrangement with the beheaders so that the Syrian engineers can riun these plants and keep power going for the population in the phony "caliphate" and in other parts of Syria. It is possible that part of that may mean buying some of teh captured oil from the terrorists in order to send it to parts of Syria controlled by the UN recognised government, I don't know. However, I think that the impression that may be drawn that the government and the terrorists are in cahoots is not correct.

The article says

"The addition of Mr Haswani to the sanctions list brings to 55 the number of Syrian companies and individuals singled out for EU counter-measures. Another company added to the list on Saturday is accused of supplying Russian-produced banknotes to the Central Bank of Syria. DK Group is described as transferring the banknotes in cargo aircraft flying from Russia to Damascus via a variety of third countries."

It mentions Syrians and Syrian companies and Russian bank notes but there is no mention of any Qataris, Saudis, Turks etc being sanctioned. I don't know if any have been.

It's very worthwhile watching US TV to get the real picture and see the real connected insiders to see what may happen.

Here is the former President of the Council of Foreign Relations (an organisation whose existence is now openly acknowledged but whose existence was denied for years by the great and the good when the conspiracy theorists brought it up) saying that Syria may end up being split into 4, 5 or 6 enclaves - one for Assad, one for the Kurds, one for Isis, one for Nusra (which is a renamed Al Qaeda) etc.

edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/10/31/exp-gps-haass-sot-syria.cnn

This is what conspiracy theorists have been saying for years since many top think tanks were proposing that and had put out papers on that type of breakup of Syria. Conspiracy theorists say that an oil pipeline can then be run through those enclaves not controlled by the Syrian government, but controlled by the funded and backed Jihadis in their phony "caliphate".

There are now talks in Vienna and it all depends on whether the Russians and Iranians will agree to that type of breakup of Syria. They may have to or they may say no. If they say no, then the war is likely to continue as the Jihadis are resupplied from neighbouring ciountries. If they agree then I think it will come to an end and the Isis Jihadis will disappear from the scene as they are wiped out fairly easily once their resupplies etc are stopped.

However, it is possible that some factions among the sponsors of the Jihadis want to escalate things against Russia and Putin and drag the world into war. We don't know how it will all play out and whether a deal can be done to end the war against Assad.

That's very interesting, and I agree with much of it. From everything I read, all the roads lead to an inflammatory alliance between Saudi (and the geopolitical accident, which turned a hellhole into a player), and US and its continuation of Cold war politics. Different reasons but same outcome. So, Saudi and US for global domination, and exclude Russia (and, possibly a dragged-in China). If this has any merit, then WW3 is on the cards, absolutely. Are Saudi and US at the bottom of all of this?

Claig - Also, I don't share your enthusiasm for the jihadis disappearing from the scene if things turn that way. They are now very rich in their on right and have control of oil supplies. They want to spread Wahhabism. They are not going to go quietly.

It's difficult to understand exactly what is going on. We can only guess. It is not the US per se. In my opinion, Obama has done a brilliant job in stopping the war hawks in the US from escalating Ukraine and escalating Syria. He has withstood pressure from war hawks and billionaires and bankers to take the gloves off.

We know that General Wesley Clark told us of a plan to invade and topple the governments of 7 countries including Iraq, Libya, Syria and eventually Iran. We know that some think tanks have advocated this type of thing and that the end of Sykes Picot for the Middle East was on the cards. The war hawks managed to topple Gaddafi and destroy probably the richest country in Africa, Libya and spread chaos.Tony Blair's emails had no effect because these things are decided way above the head and pay grade of someone like a Blair.

"Emails reveal Blair's fight to save Gaddafi: Former PM urged Hillary Clinton not to 'humiliate' dictator as he attempted to broker peace after eruption of civil war"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298617/Emails-reveal-Blair-s-fight-save-Gaddafi-Former-PM-urged-Hillary-Clinton-not-humiliate-dictator-attempted-broker-peace.html

It seems like the plan may also have involved spreading the chaos to Eqypt under the Muslim Brotherhood government. But the Eqyptian military ended all that by toppling the elected Muslim Brotherhood government which longterm will stop any spread of Islamic militancy in Eqypt and which will provide stability for the millions of Eqyptian people.

The plan then moved onto Syria where the Jihadis have been funded to topple the government. But the plan failed in Syria. Assad has lasted for 4 years and the Jihadis and the backing of their billionaire funders failed to topple Assad.

The war hawks wanted Obama to take the gloves off and bomb Assad and help the Free Syrian Army more in order to topple Assad. But he didn't do it and the push to bomb Assad failed and Putin saved Obama's face by delivering the deal to remove Assad's chemical weapons. The war hawks and the billionaires and bankers who fund them were furious and they decided to give Putin a headache in Ukraine in recompense for his thwarting of the plan for Syria. But again, Obama has refused to take the gloves off in Ukraine and fully help the Ukrainians against Russia by escalating things further.

The funders of the Jihadis in Syria are powerful elements within Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey who all stand to gain by the toppling of Assad.

However, the plan has failed and the communique of the Vienna talks no longer insists that Assad must go etc. So the war hawks have failed. But they haven't gone away and they will try more plots and schemes to escalate things and achieve their plan.

However, the world is changing. We now have Donald Trump openly questioning what is going on and essentially supporting Putin's actions. The war hawks are fuming and the media has been set on Trump but the people still place him at the top of the polls for Republican contenders for President. If Trump becomes President, everything changes and the war hawks and the billionaires and bankers who fund them will lose out.

France has been very hawkish over Assad and has semnanded that he must go etc and they are still doing so, but if Le Pen becomes President, everything will change in Europe and the war hawks will lose out. Even now in France, Sarkozy has started agreeing with Putin and going against the policy of the current socialist government.Time is running out for the war hawks and the billionaires and bankers who fund them.

Sarkozy, who was one of the Libya war hawks, has now changed his tune and has been over to visit Putin this week

"Sarkozy's Putin visit sparks controversy at home

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy came under fire on Thursday for making an unofficial visit to Russian President Vladimir Putin at his residence near Moscow, where both men expressed regret for disagreements between their countries.

Paris has been highly critical of Russia's military intervention in Syria and French President François Hollande has said he sees no role for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a future political transition.

Sarkozy, who heads the conservative The Republicans party and is widely expected to make another run for the presidency in 2017, was slammed by the Socialist government over the visit.

French junior minister for higher education and research Thierry Mandon said Sarkozy had no business short-circuiting French foreign policy."

www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/us-france-russia-sarkozy-idUSKCN0SN2GL20151029#wUFfIsbbst91yzsF.97

Everything is changing and the war hawks' plans have failed. The deal that Obama has made with Iran may signal a shift in US policy and signal the declining influence of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are worried. The French are still hawkish, but the Germans want an end to the war and the US may be changing its plans for the Middle East.

Some analysts and conspiracy researchers say that we may be seeing a curtailing of Tiurkish and Saudi influence in the region and that a Kurdish type state may be formed to weaken some countries in the region.

It is still to early to know what is going on.

But the war hawks are still around and their billionaire and banker backers are furious that their plans have not worked and they will still try again.

The real driver for war is the need to maintain economic hegemony that the billionaires and bankers currently enjoy. As their power diminishes and as China and Russia and the BRICS become more economically independent, some of the billionaires feel that they must be stopped in order for the billionaires and bankers not to lose some of their power.

If Donald Trump becomes President of the US however, it looks like they will be stopped as Trump makes deals, stops wars and wasting trillions of dollars, focuses on rebuilding America and says that he will probably get on well with Putin.

'They are now very rich in their on right and have control of oil supplies. They want to spread Wahhabism. They are not going to go quietly.'

I tend to think that they are puppets, created out of nowhere within the past few years, and they will disappear overnight once the strings of their puppet masters are cut.

I think the Saudis are losing influence and support, possibly even from America, and that will end the spread of Wahhabism as change comes to Saudi Arabia itself.

Again, very interesting and I am in general agreement with everything you've said as all sounds plausible. What of this? I believe that the refugee crisis was created to serve European politicians' interest - not a great intellectual leap, given what Sutherland has said over Europe's homogeneity. It's obvious that a tightly-nationalistic democracy means that politicians have to work not for their own interests but for the country's interests more generally. A destabilised nation, with many identities and self-identifying cultural factions allows politicians to push through their own plans. Germany is par excellence of this. Farage has been saying this for a very long time. But what now? Where do we go from here with the madness that is happening in Germany?

'I believe that the refugee crisis was created to serve European politicians' interest'

When I first read this, I disagreed as I misunderstood what you meant. But reading it again, I agree.

Conspiracy researchers believe this is a deliberate destabilisation of Europe and therefore is not in the interests of Europe and the European people. But yes, I think it is in the interests of this European political class of puppets who work for the elite bankers and billionaires.

We know that this political class of puppets hates any country that is independent or adopts ant nationalist policies that go against the internationalist policies of the bankers. They all hate Orban in Hungary for standing up to them, and they all hate Le Pen and they all dislike Trump becauase they all stand up for the interests of their own people.

What has happened to Germany is a destabilisation and the puppet Merkel cannot stop it and it is leading to destabilisation of Germany and all of Europe. It is bad news for Europe but not bad news for the puppet political class of servants to the bankers and elites.

'Farage has been saying this for a very long time'

Absolutely, and that is why they all hate Farage as well and call him "toxic".

'Where do we go from here with the madness that is happening in Germany?'

I think that the plotters and schemers will fail in their destabilisation plans and that puppets will lose elections and that common sense will prevail in the end. I think we are seeing that all over the world, particularly with the rise of Trump in America.

If Trump becomes President, the whole world changes overnight. The politically correct puppets of the bankers will no longer get favourable treatment in the White House and the policies of spreading chaos and destabilisation to Europe and the rest of the world will end as common deals are made that respect the interests of all countries and not the interests of the bankers.

So if you're interested in discussing the facts and events that are swept under the mainstream media carpet, you're a conspiracy theorist ~ OK I get it.

batshitlady, that is bullshit.

That is certainly not the case, but if you really want to know what goes on, conspiracy researchers are a good source of analysis as opposed to the mainstream crony corporate media

Conspiracy theories is perhaps not exactly the right phrase here although some alternative information seekers and providers do identify themselves as such. All Claig's conspiracy theories are is alternative explanations for the same events. I apply a two-fold test of 1) fairness and 2) common-sense to everything, and if something does not seem fair or make sense, then it's reasonable to ask what else is going on. Take, for example, Iraq. Despite much information preceding Britain's involvement that there were no good reasons for this, Blair pressed on. Why? It just didn't make any sense. Why not go after others who were equally as bad or worse? Why Iraq? I tried really hard to make myself believe that they were right, that they knew something. It never did make any sense, though. Retrospectively, we now know that it's a fairly logical question to ask whether he was setting up relationships so that not only he personally but those around him could profit from it all. When was the last time you saw Blair in Africa or South-East Asia, 'consulting'? Take the refugee crisis in Germany today. Is Merkel really helping the refugees? Well, for her to say that they can stay if they make it to Germany by themselves would suggest otherwise. It's disgusting. How can this be policy? What a stupid thing to say. There are other ways to help refugees. I've thought and thought about this and it just doesn't make any sense. As such, alternative explanations to what is presented in the media would appear to be more reasonable and sensible. Finally, we all know that our politicians have a very unhealthy disrespect for us - they tell us often enough, and more so recently (e.g., Blair and his pronouncement that the public cannot and must not be trusted with the too-important question of Europe). Very little in the mainstream news makes sense or is fair, at least in the way it's presented there. No wonder the BBC is losing its licence payers at approx. 1000 per week!

Claig I don't understand how that went over your head.. That's what I'm saying!

fourmummy In defence of Claig's conspiracy theories as alternative explanations for the same events. RE: the Bush/Blair Iraq bloodbath you mentioned, wouldn't you agree that weapons inspectors such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter and just about every other independent expert in the field, who's voices were all but ignored by the mainstream media, in favour of Bush/Blair's invented WMD scare stories, all doing the same thing?

Were you applying this two-fold test of yours whilst you were trying to make yourself believe that a propaganda-led, invasiuon of Iraq was 'right'?

You see meanwhile, at the time, there were many other people seeking alternative explanations. Or, a more balanced view. Yet we were 'conspiracy theorists' for believing that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'. And the policy was to launch a war of aggression against Iraq.

Batshitlady - it went over my head too! I just re-read it and see what you were saying (duh!). Non-verbal channels and intonation in addition to text are obviously also needed to detect irony...

batshitlady - I use the Iraq war as an example of a complete breakdown in my belief in the mainstream explanations and justifications for events. I was very badly let down at that time and it remains a painful event in my life. The justifications and subsequent course of action did not make sense. Yet, I could not/would not allow myself to believe that the policymakers were getting it so badly wrong. For a short while, I desperately sought explanations to make it seem 'right'. Plenty were available, of course, and we all know the outcome. It taught me never to believe any mainstream narrative because it's undoubtedly a result of somebody's payroll, serving an agenda or seeking hegemony. Always. But, of course, I am preaching to the converted here. I am actually really worried about the future. The peace that we have enjoyed and were raised in will not last.

'Claig I don't understand how that went over your head.. That's what I'm saying! '

Sorry, batshitlady. I totally misunderstood you and got the wrong end of the stick. You are absolutely right.

Maybe we should start a separate thread on 'Establishment lies and alternative explanations', or, to make it more neutral :) 'Current policy and alternative/better policy'.

Maybe we should start a separate thread on 'Establishment lies and alternative explanations

Id love that, I do enjoy reading 'alternative theories'!

getting it so badly wrong It's interesting the use of the word wrong in connection to the gargantuan, criminal fraud that the Blair gov't pulled on the British public over the Iraq catastrophe.

Next time I deliberately and repeatedly lie in court I shall defend myself by telling the judge and jury that the testimony I gave was wrong information, not a pack of LIES.

batshitlady - that's my point. Given the opaqueness and obfuscation of most official narratives, it took me a lifetime of reading, putting things together and thinking things through to come to the realisation that, in contrast to the beliefs that I was raised with, the so-called 'experts' such as politicians (plus others) might not have the best interests of their citizens at heart. I still find it hard to believe that someone may lie, cheat, obfuscate, smarm and anything else you can think of for greed, personal gain, power and financial gain, especially here where Britain is meant to be a fair and just society. I commend you (genuinely) for realising that Iraq was a lie. That was a turning point for me, and a shocking one. I really do apply my two-fold test. I wasn't being patronising. It took me a lifetime also to realise that academic writing, official reports and intellectual theorising may also work for the dominant narrative. It was a big moment, to reject all of that and go back to common-sense and fairness as my two guiding principles through life. Recent example. Our GP insisted on prescribing a certain type of inhaler for my son, which he does not find easy to use (powder instead of wet spray), which made me incredibly angry because it was unreasonable (why? He's a child so shouldn't his life be made a little easier?) and unfair (why should a taxpayer be denied a perfectly reasonable request that they've paid for?). This has been happening for years and makes me angry every time, all because the GP surgery has been 'bought' by one specific pharma. company rather than another. If Pfizer, rather than Glaxo or whatever were active at this particular GP surgery, then we'd be getting a different inhaler. I detest living like this - suspicious, distrustful, angry. We all accept it now though, don't we? When was the last time we did anything to eliminate the career politicians, the 'middle management' group and the bureaucrats? As far as I can see, they are all at it apart from a smattering of independents, who are either already rich, already have a job or have no need of one, appear to have no need for personal gain, or whatever else. As a nation, we actually accept it when Blair says that we shouldn't be trusted to make important decisions. He, and they, think that we are stupid and no-one contradicts him, says a word or protests!