Arab country’s Russia’s largest batch of humanitarian aid ever sent to Syria has been delivered to the Port of Tartus.
According to Press TV, the 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid, consistent of mostly foodstuffs, arrived in the port on Wednesday. It was delivered via two transport vessels, Sparta-1 and Sparta-2.
“This is the biggest humanitarian aid supply batch delivered to Syria by sea. It mainly consists of foodstuffs — flour, sugar, canned goods. At the same time, the canned goods deliveries take into account the traditions of the population, so it is beef and fish,” said Russia’s military commandant at the port.
While addressing reporters, Tartus Mayor Haidar Murhej thanked Russia for its humanitarian efforts, while stressing that the aid would be swiftly distributed among those in need.
“First of all we appreciate the help and thank Russia for the support. As you know our countries have maintained friendly relations since the times of the USSR. The humanitarian cargo we received will soon be delivered to the regions which need it the most. First of all to the refugee camps and to the territories recently liberated from the terrorists,” he said.
Earlier in the year, Russia and Syria signed an agreement on the development and modernization of the leased military installation of the Russian Navy in the Mediterranean port city, and extending operations there to the next decades.
JEWISH MURDERERS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2007-2010
Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Br Nathanael Kapner
& Link To Real Jew News (SM)
4 REVOLUTIONS WERE ENGINEERED BY WORLD JEWRY.
The first was the English Revolution in 1649 which was financed by Jews from Holland, in which Cromell committed regicide. As the Jewish financiers dictated, Cromwell opened the doors for the return of the ousted Jews to England in 1656.
Building from this, World Jewry initiated, financed, and agitated the French Revolution beginning in 1788, resulting again in regicide and the Jewish subverting of the established Christian order. And Jews profited once again, for in 1789, all civil disabilities against the Jews in France were lifted and the Great Emancipation of the Jews took place.
The third Revolution was the Bolshevik uprising in Russia, of which this treatise focuses. The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by Jewish bankers, led by Jacob H Schiff of the Jewish Banking house, Kuhn, Loeb Co. Jews gained prominent roles in the Soviet government, and for the 3rd time, regicide of a Christian ruler was perpetrated by the Jews.
Dr. Fahey, in his authenticated work, The Rulers Of Russia quotes an American missionary stationed in St Petersburg from 1907 to 1918: “In October 1918, out of 388 members of the revolutionary government only 16 happened to be real Russians. All the rest were Jews with the exception of one negro. Many of these Jews came from the Lower East Side of New York.”
The fourth Revolution was the Spanish Civil War of 1936, financed by Bolshevik Jewry, but successfully opposed by Franco and Germany.
A FIFTH REVOLUTION on an International scale is now at work and headquartered in America. This is the Zionist agenda to create a New World Order whose oligarchs are Jews with names that include: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, the Zionist neocon advisors to the Jewish-bought President George Bush.
The Israel Lobby known as AIPAC is the organizational apparatus of the 5th Revolution now in the making.
IN THE DARK NIGHT OF JULY 16 1918, Tzar Nicholas II and his pious Christian family were shot and bayoneted in cold blood by these Cheka Jews:
1. Jacob Yurovksy, a Jewish Czech
2. Sergei Medvedjev
3. Lev Nikulin, a Jewish Czech
4. Peter Yermakov
5. Fyodor Vaganov, a New York Jew
6. Jacob Sverdlov, (Yankel Solomon), the first President of the Soviet Union. He gave the order to murder the Royal Family. Sverdlov began his Anti Christian career when he joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1902.
*** This was the beginning of the wholesale slaughter of over 8,000,000 Russian Orthodox Christians from 1918 through 1943. ***THE LEADING JEWISH MURDERERSa) Leon Bronstein (Trotsky), Commander of the Soviet Red Army.
b) Grigory Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Director, Soviet Secret Police, seized Church-owned property, murdered tens of thousands of Orthodox Christians.
c) Maxim Wallach (Litvinov), Soviet Foreign Minister.
d) Solomon Lozovsky, Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister.
e) Yuri Andropov, Jewish Director of the Soviet KGB
A PROMINENT JEWISH JOURNALIST now admits that in 1934, 38% of those holding high office in Stalin’s murderous regime were Jews:
1. Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich: Millions of Orthodox Christians were murdered by order of Kaganovich. He orderered the destruction of hundreds of Christian churches including Christ The Saviour Cathedral in Moscow.
In 1991, after living the life of a prince, Kaganovich committed suicide in fear of the “open society,” that is, “glasnot” which would have exposed his murderous deeds.
2. Ilya Ehrenburg: Minister of Soviet Propaganda for Stalin. He wrote, “The Germans are not human beings. Nothing gives us greater joy than corpses of Germans.”
3. Yevgeny Khaldei: Red Army photographer. Born in the Ukraine of Jewish parents. He staged the raising of the Hammer & Sickle Flag in the German Reichstag in Berlin in 1945, the emblem of the slaughter of millions of peasants and Christians, describing it as “the Russian national symbol of justice, triumph, and revenge.”
4. Bela Kun (Cohen): Dictator of Hungary in 1919. Kun was later Stalin’s chief terrorist in the Crimea. Kun’s eventual successor was Matyas Rakosi, a Jewish Communist mass murderer of Christians in Hungary.
5. Moshe Pijade: Commander, Yugoslav Communist People’s Army. Tito’s top butcher of hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavian Christians.
ALSO SEE: Bloody Jew Kaganovitch
PRESENT DAY RUSSIARUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin, contrary to White Supremacist David Duke’s assertions that he is promoting a white-society, is rather promoting the re-emergence of the historic religion and culture of Russia, namely, Russian Orthodox Christianity.
In a recent statement to Russian Orthodox Christians in America, Putin said, “You now have a believer at the head of Russia’s government.”
Putin has put his money where his mouth is by refusing the request of Russian Jewish scientists to discontinue Russian Christian Orthodoxy 101 in public schools. AndThe International Gay Rights Movement packed its bags in retreat whenÂ Putin consistently banned their Gay Parades in the streets of Moscow ever since his reign began in 2000.
ON NOVEMBER 5 2007, a rally was staged in Moscow celebrating Russian Unity Day. Slogans against Jews were shouted out including, “Death To The Jews!” World Jewry is now criticizing Putin for both allowing the rally and not repudiating it.
See Jerusalem Post’s Russia Slow To Act Against Anti Semitism
Bottom Line: The clock is now ticking before a huge backlash against the Jews occurs both here in America and abroad. Whenever Jews arrogate to themselves overwhelming power, history has taught us that a reaction by the host nations eventually takes place. In order for the Jews to prevent a conflagration, they must place the host nation’s interests before their own Zionist agenda.
As a Street Evangelist, I am proposing another solution, which I call the Christian final solution. Jews must renounce their racist religion of Judaism, a “reactionary” religion, and become Christians.
Some say that many Jews are not part of the Zionist agenda but are simply rank and file Jewish citizens. But I say that corporate guilt is in place, that is, apart from a renunciation of the Jewish agenda, all Jews are culpable. I for one, and many like me, repudiated Judaism and became an Orthodox Christian. If I, a former Jew embraced Jesus Christ, why can’t they?
How the Insurgencies in Middle East are not Terrorism?
Nauman Sadiq for Veterans Today
The definition of the term “terrorism” has been deliberately left undefined by the Western powers to use it as a catch-all pretext to justify their interventionist policy in the energy-rich Islamic countries. Depending on context, “terrorism” can mean two markedly distinct phenomena: that are, religious extremism or militancy.
If terrorism is understood as religious extremism, then that is a cultural mindset and one cannot possibly hope to transform cultures through the means of war and military interventions; if anything, war will further radicalize the society.
However, by terrorism, if the Western powers mean militancy, then tamping down on militancy and violence through the means of war does makes sense because a policy of disarmament and deweaponization can be subsequently pursued in the occupied territories.
That being understood that the Western powers aim to eradicate militancy through wars, but then a question arises that who were the Libyan and Syrian so-called “rebels” who were, and still are, being supported by the Western powers in their purported wars of “liberation” of those hapless countries? Are they not armed to the teeth militants?
Notwithstanding, it can be argued that war and militancy are only means to an end and it’s the objectives and goals that determine whether such wars are just or unjust. No-one can dispute this assertion that the notions of “just wars” and “good militants” do exist in the vocabulary; empirically speaking, however, after witnessing the instability, violence and utter chaos and anarchy in the war-ravaged countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, the onus lies on any “liberal interventionist” to prove beyond doubt that the wars and militants that he justifies and upholds are indeed just and good.
In political science, the devil always lies in the definitions of the terms that we employ. For instance: how do you define a terrorist or a militant? In order to understand this we need to identify the core of a “militant,” that what essential feature distinguishes him from the rest?
A militant is basically an armed and violent individual who carries out subversive activities against the state. That being understood, now we need to examine the concept of “violence.” Is it violence per se that is wrong, or does some kind of justifiable violence exists?
In the contemporary politics, I take the view, on empirical grounds, that all kinds of violence is essentially wrong; because the ends (goals) for which such violence is often employed are seldom right and elusive at best. Although democracy and liberal ideals are cherished goals but such goals can only be accomplished through peaceful means; expecting from armed and violent militants to bring about democratic reform is naïve and preposterous.
The Western mainstream media and its neoliberal constituents, however, take a different view. According to them, there are two distinct kinds of violence: justifiable and unjustifiable. When a militant resorts to violence for the secular and nationalist goals, such as “bringing democracy” to Libya and Syria, the misinformed neoliberals enthusiastically exhort such form of violence.
However, if such militants later turn out to be Islamic jihadists, like the Misrata militia and Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, or the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, the credulous neoliberals, who have been misguided by the mainstream narrative, promptly make a volte-face and label them as “terrorists.”
More to the point, there is a big difference between an anarchist and a nihilist: an anarchist believes in something and wants to change the status quo in the favor of that belief, while a nihilist believes is nothing and considers life to be meaningless.
Similarly, there is also a not-so-subtle difference between a terrorist and an insurgent: an Islamic insurgent believes in something and wants to enforce that agenda in the insurgency-hit regions, while a terrorist is just a bloodthirsty lunatic who is hell-bent on causing death and destruction. The distinguishing feature between the two is that an insurgent has well defined objectives and territorial ambitions, while a terrorist is basically motivated by the spirit of revenge and the goal of causing widespread fear.
The phenomena of terrorism is that which threatened the Western countries between 2001 to 2005 when some of the most audacious terrorist acts were carried out by al-Qaeda against the Western targets like the 9/11 tragedy, the Madrid bombing in 2004 and the London bombing in 2005; or the terrorist acts committed by the Islamic State in Europe in the last couple of years; those acts were primarily the result of intelligence failure on the part of the Western intelligence agencies.
However, the phenomena which is currently threatening the Islamic countries is not terrorism, as such, but Islamic insurgencies. Excluding al Qaeda Central which is a known transnational terrorist organization, all the regional militant groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, al Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria, and even some of the ideological affiliates of al Qaeda and Islamic State, like Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, the Islamic State affiliates in Afghanistan, Sinai and Libya which have no organizational and operational association with al Qaeda Central or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, respectively, are not terror groups, as such, but Islamic insurgents who are fighting for the goal of enforcing Sharia in their respective areas of operations; like their progenitor, the Salafist State of Saudi Arabia.
Notwithstanding, after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the American “nation-building” projects failed in those hapless countries, the US policymakers immediately realized that they were facing large-scale and popularly-rooted insurgencies against foreign occupation; consequently, the occupying military altered its CT (counter-terrorism) approach in the favor of a COIN (counter-insurgency) strategy.
A COIN strategy is essentially different from a CT approach and it also involves dialogue, negotiations and political settlements, alongside the coercive tactics of law enforcement and military and paramilitary operations on a limited scale.
The goals for which Islamic insurgents have been fighting in the insurgency-wracked regions are irrelevant for the debate at hand; it can be argued, however, that if some of the closest Western allies in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, have already enforced Sharia as part of their conservative legal systems and when beheadings, amputations of limbs and flogging of criminals are a routine in Saudi Arabia, then what is the basis for the US declaration of war against Islamic insurgents in the Middle East who are erroneously but deliberately labeled as “terrorists” by the Western mainstream media to manufacture consent for the Western military presence and interventions in the energy-rich region under the pretext of the so-called “war on terror”?
Regardless, the root factors that are primarily responsible for spawning militancy and insurgency anywhere in the world is not religion but socio-economics, ethnic differences, marginalization of disenfranchised ethno-linguistic and ethno-religious groups and the ensuing conflicts; socio-cultural backwardness of the affected regions, and the weak central control of the impoverished developing states over their remote rural and tribal areas.
Additionally, if we take a cursory look at some of the worst insurgency-plagued regions in the Middle East, deliberate funding, training and arming of certain militant groups by regional and global powers for their strategic interests has played the key role.
Back in the ‘80s, during the Soviet-Afghan war, the Afghan so-called “mujahideen” did not spring up spontaneously out of nowhere; the Western powers, with the help of Saudi money and Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, trained and armed those “freedom fighters” against their archrival, the Soviet Union. Those very same Afghan “mujahideen” later mutated into the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Similarly, during the Libyan and Syrian uprisings, the Western powers, with the help of their regional client states, once again trained and armed Islamic jihadists and tribal militiamen against the hostile regimes of Qaddafi and Bashar al Assad. And isn’t it ironic that those very same “moderate rebels” later transformed into Ansar al Sharia, al Nusra Front and the Islamic State?
While formulating their security policies, military strategists generally draw a distinction between intentions and capability of adversary, and they always prepare for the latter. Similarly, the ideology of militants, whether it’s ethno-religious or ethno-nationalist, only has a tangential importance; it’s their capability: that is, their funding, training and arming, that decides the strength and success of a militant organization.
About the author:
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petroimperialism.