Impunity is another US lethal weapon that kills silently. As of 2001, the US has given a free hand and a shocking degree of impunity and immunity to warlords and vicious strongmen who has slaughtered numerous in the late twentieth century. All these killers encircling Kabul regime today have contributed to Soviet ouster and have eventually set the stage for the US arrival. From the US interest perspective, they deserve survival not just for paid services, rather for a persistent military stronghold in Afghanistan.
The US-watched Hamid Karzai’s government forged a national reconciliation bill which was passed by Afghan Parliament in 2007 and got the shape of law. The Afghan Amnesty Law pardoned warlords for all the atrocities and war crimes committed from April 27, 1978 coup up until Hamid Karzai’s ascendance to power in 2001. Under this law, they enjoy vested exemption from being prosecuted or investigated for the war crimes. The law further elaborates that all those “thugs” who would function in or standing behind Karzai government [and international presence] would go free of investigation. This vividly means they are unleashed and open to carry out any act of crime “thereinafter”.
Amid the US bombardment of the Taliban safe havens in 2001, it rounded up a number of 700 second and third rank of Taliban members and transported them to Guantanamo Bay prison, though a majority of genuine Taliban leaders were immediately immunized and redirected to Pakistan by US and allies [Britain and Pakistan] who ditched of falling prey to the sick personnel of Guantanamo detention center.
In months after the Taliban regime, in the run-up to build a post-Taliban US-led administration, a ballot box was placed for the election of the head of the interim administration where ex-president Hamid Karzai and his only rival were contestants. The later contender won the vote over Karzai, but thanks to a premeditated conspiracy, Karzai had to accede to the office which was pushed through the position by Zalmai Khalilzad the special US envoy and Lakhdar Brahimi the UN representative to Afghanistan, both of whom opposed the voting result.
In the early 2000s, The Afghan Constitution was enacted with debatable topics such as market economy that opened the gate for the Western companies and investments. The other paramount point was the establishment of a “presidential system”, or in plain term, an authoritarian regime where a president is not accountable to any party. This model of leadership is corresponding to that of South Korea, earlier Philippines regime, Taiwan and probably others. In such a government, a president is not just presiding over the executive branch; it is in command of the legislative and judicial branches of a country as well. And in the context of such authoritative government Hamid Karzai turned out as an abundantly affectional and warm leader to a horde of sharks and predators that descended the nation into a near-total mess.
Principally led by the US, Hamid Karzai’s administration gave a blanket amnesty to the Afghan Mujahideens, except for Ahmed Shah Masoud, the only though dominant warlord who saw a fatal fate. He was assassinated on September 9, 2001 just two days prior to 9/11 tragedy. It is broadly believed he was murdered out of his supremacy over other fellow Mujahideen leaders that US feared would defy its military role anytime in the future.
Among hundreds of mass-killing cases documented to support the claim of US impunity, one happened in 2006 on Kabul-Jalalabad highway when American forces opened aimless fires on passersby and locals after they faced a suicide bomber. It killed 20 and injured 30 people, but just like scores of other blatant strikes at civilians, none underwent investigation and punishment.
Sometime in Karzai government, a wedding ceremony in a rural area in Uruzgan province was bombed by the US warplanes which slaughtered children, women and elderly men including the groom and bride. Time and again it faded out without a hitch for those involved.
Nonetheless, in May 4, 2009 a US air attack pounded a village in western Afghan province of Farah and killed 86 to 147 civilians including children and women who had fled the Taliban and Afghan Army crossfire and resettled for safety in the area. In August 2008, the same assailants’ aircraft hit a neighborhood in Aziz Abad village of western Herat province and slaughtered between 78 to 92 people, and the list goes on as they are just a few handpicked catastrophes.
The most disgraceful posthumous compensation during Hamid Karzai administration was a negligible-to-life “blood money” of US$ 1,000 to 1,800 for each martyred and US$ 500 to 1,000 for wounded, only if they were harmed by direct US or NATO strike.
Moving on, the US proclaims it would defend Afghanistan against external threats, which is explicitly stated in the US-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA). According to the BSA, the United States has duty to protect the territorial integrity of Afghanistan against foreign aggression. This is while Pakistan has occasionally been firing mortar shells on Afghanistan’s border regions since many years which have killed several people and cattle.
But the US’s posture to the provocations was so mild. It has still continued to approve billions in military aid to Pakistan as well as it chose to donate many fighter jets and an ocean of military hardware it used in Afghanistan to Pakistan after the combat mission ended in 2014, not quite later than Osama Bin Laden’s assassination in a compound near Islamabad.
The Kabul-Washington Security Agreement was inked a day after Karzai’s successor Ashraf Ghani was sworn in as president. The accord bestows, on paper, several concessions to the both sides, where Afghanistan barely seems to extract any profit out of it, while the US got its nine large bases sanctioned and legalized in Afghanistan once and for all.
One more privilege extended to the US side by virtue of the agreement was immunity of its servicemen against legal action within jurisdiction of Afghanistan. The accord states that those found guilty of crimes may undergo trial in the US rather than Afghanistan, and if the Afghan government demands, Washington may keep it abreast of progress made in regard of proceedings.
While in early Karzai presidency, the minimal punishment of US servicemen for mass shooting of innocents was that they would get fired from doing service in Afghanistan and forced back to the United States. The absurd excuse often placed behind the massacres was that the alleged shooters were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The US as the architect of Kabul regime absolutely rules the critical policies of the Afghan government. Gulbudeen Hekmatyar – a war criminal of dark era in early 1990s and assassin of numberless who has reportedly been harbored in Pakistan since mid-nineties –joined the Afghan government last year which was, indeed, beyond and above Ashraf Ghani’s powers to bring him over. The US welcomed Gulbudeen’s deal with Ashraf Ghani and drew world attention into the move as a sole initiative of the Afghan government.
Gulbudeen was vehemently liable for punishment to death in the international tribunal for bearing a murderous background. In a statement released the other day by Gulbudeen’s party, it has voiced support of Islamic State terrorist group against the Taliban.
Moreover, Afghanistan was in no state to get his name removed from the UN blacklist had it not been for the US. This serves the striking example of the West’s impunity policy to its faithful elements.
In 2014, the US administration released five high-profile Taliban inmates from Guantanamo prison in a swap deal with one US soldier who was held captive with the Taliban. The Taliban prisoners were incarcerated for the crucial role in the Taliban regime and heinous war crimes against humanity. Discharging 5 for 1 is unjustifiable and repercussive for the Afghan nation. Throughout US occupation, quite a few times the Taliban prisoners have been cleared of Guantanamo prison and sometime later news has emerged of their resurgence and re-alignment with the Taliban.
The exemptions of the Taliban inmates in the form of swap reflect that they are held as reserve and mobilized for war as need arises. Some Taliban prisoners have even walked free from the prison under guise of efforts to “bring peace”.
In October 2014, two second-rank Haqqani network members were arrested by the intelligence agency of Afghanistan. Anas Haqqani along with another high-profile Haqqani leader, Hafiz Rashid, were detained in the south-eastern Afghan province of Khost. The former is the son of Haqqani terrorist network’s founder, Jalaludin Haqqani and the latter is half-blood brother of Sarajjudin Haqqani, the sitting leader of the terror group.
So far as they are held to no purpose as they confess to mass murder of innumerable Afghans. The US was expected to step forward and determine their fate as it has called for a stern war on Haqqani network and termed the group a “menace” to the American security. Despite being blacklisted by both the West and UN, the US is counteractively so “relent” to the terror group.
Let’s take the execution of Abdul Malik Rigi as an oppositely “relentless” example. He was the leader of Islamist Sunni terrorist group Jundullah who was captured in a wondering way by the Iranian intelligence agents. Rigi was a radical dissident of Iranian regime accused of so many terror crimes against members of Iranian revolutionary guard. While flying from Dubai to Kyrgyzstan in Feb. 2010, his carrier passenger plane – when entered into the Iranian airspace – was chased, intercepted and forced to land in Iranian soil by fighter jets. At the time, his arrest was long used as an exemplary instance by Afghans against Kabul regime’s crippled counterterrorism actions. He was later hung to death in June 2010.
Midnight Approaching over Syria?
To the elation of the western corporate media, Neocons like John McCain and Democons like Hillary Clinton – who had only just called for Trump to attack Syria 24 hours before he obliged – the US President unilaterally ordered the US Army, on April 6, to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian military airfield in Ash Sha’irat near Homs. And managed to appease the entire ‘establishment’ he promised to oppose during his presidential campaign — that so vehemently attacked him for everything he did during his short time in the White House, previous to the attack.
Just to put their ‘elation’ into perspective: Of the top 100 newspapers in the US, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watch group based in New York City, reports that 47 ran editorials on the attack; 39 clearly in favour of it, seven ambiguous (although some may argue that they too were in favour), and only one opposing it. Journalist Brian Williams, who was caught lying about going to Iraq with a Navy Seal team in a helicopter that was hit by a rocket propelled grenade, described the images of the cruise missile launch as “beautiful pictures” live on MSNBC. What he didn’t mention was that the missiles in those “beautiful pictures” killed seven Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers and 7 (or 9) civilians according to reports.
The attack was justified by the US saying (without conducting an investigation or presenting any evidence) that President Assad had used chemical weapons on Syrians in Idlib. This is precisely what the Russian government and others protested in the emergency UN Security Council meeting, called after the attack. Asking, why the US would not wait for the United Nations or other agencies to complete their investigations to find out what had really happened before acting?
Especially after the Russian Ministry of Defence released information about a Syrian army airstrike in Idlib on a rebel warehouse allegedly housing chemical weapons which, according to them, released the chemicals resulting in the deaths that were being used to vilify President Assad. And after what had happened in East Ghouta in 2013 when the US almost went to war with Syria, accusing President Assad of having used chemical weapons (similar to now), which was later proven to be false by many different agencies and individuals — including Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist Seymour Hersh, Former UN Weapons Inspector Richard Lloyd, the UN and its former Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte (which was blacked out of the mainstream media).
Ray McGovern, who was head of the Soviet Foreign Policy branch of the CIA, reminded everyone in an interview with journalist Lee Stranahan right after the recent alleged chemical attack, that back in 2014, the UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had confirmed the destruction of all declared chemical weapons held by the Syrian government on board of a US maritime vessel, under UN supervision, following the East Ghouta incident. Moreover, in January 2016, the OPCW had again certified that the Syrian government was free of all chemical weapons.
Despite the mainstream media’s failure to report on all of these and more, what it most criminally failed to do is point out the illegality of the US strike on Syria, perhaps unsurprisingly, as has been the case starting with the (illegal under international law but ‘humanitarian’) NATO-US bombing of Yugoslavia in 1995.
Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emeritus at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, wrote in Consortium News,
“Regardless of who is responsible for the Khan Sheikhoun chemical deaths…Trump’s response violated both US and international law”.
This is because the US War Powers Resolution act only authorises the President to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in three situations, according to the professor:
“First, after Congress has declared war, which has not happened in this case; second, in ‘a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,’ which has not occurred; third, when there is ‘specific statutory authorisation,’ which there is not”. Making it illegal under US laws.
Meanwhile, the UN Charter prohibits the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”, except for in two cases. One, when done in self-defence after an armed attack (the US was not attacked). Two, after getting approval of the UN Security Council (which was not even sought). Making it illegal under international law as well.
The US administration had to, of course, be fully aware of this. And of the fact that Russia already had some armaments and military personnel placed in Syria to fight ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and the 50 other shades of extremists running rampant in the country, alongside the SAA, which the US attacked — despite risks of sparking a greater conflagration — although, reportedly, only after informing the Russians about it.
And what was the Russian response? To immediately suspend its flight safety memorandum over Syria with the US. Which, according to veteran journalist and correspondent-at-large of Asia Times, Pepe Escobar, meant that Russia, “if it chooses”, could “intercept any Pentagon flying object” from then on. Additionally sending its frigate — Admiral Grigorovich — into the Eastern Mediterranean, towards the location of the US destroyer that launched the cruise missiles into Syria.
Its Prime Minister, clearly unhappy with where things were headed, said that the attack put the US “on the verge of a military clash” with Russia. Meaning that if nothing else, what the attack did manage to do was “push the doomsday clock closer to midnight”, shattering hopes of de-escalating tensions following Trump being voted into the White House (as his campaign rhetoric had indicated towards a possible reconciliation with the Russian and Syrian governments).
The key point about the current situation, however, was stressed on by President Putin. That trust between the two nations, because of the attack, was at its lowest since the end of the Cold War. And what that does is increase chances of ‘accidental collisions/conflicts’ or worse, which can quickly get out of hand, unleashing a chain of events that both sides may not live to regret.
And that is why cooler heads need to prevail and fast. That dialogue between the two nuclear armed powers have resumed since the attack is a positive step towards the de-escalation of tensions. However, the international community must point out that the habit of unilateral aggression, illegal under international law, adopted by the US and its allies ever since the end of the Cold War, is both unacceptable and unhelpful when it comes to solving crises around the world.
And as the Russians have vehemently been saying for a while now, will only be tolerated by countries on the receiving end for so long, before they start to take things into their own hands. At which point, you will have nuclear armed powers pointing their nukes at each other with hands on triggers, wondering whether they will and when, be forced to do the unthinkable — start a nuclear war/Armageddon.
It is now two and a half minutes to midnight. The closest the world has ever been, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, to a probable “global catastrophe”.
Eresh Omar Jamal is a member of the Editorial team at The Daily Star.
Syria: Missile Strikes, The Terrorists Have Large Quantities of Chemical Weapons
What goes around, comes around. Fast on the heels of the April 4 false flag gas attack in Syria at Khan Sheikhoun, which was pinned on the Syrian government in a brazen, evidence-free media operation followed by an illegal missile strike, all skeptical objections were vehemently ridiculed and swept aside by Western propaganda agencies as groundless conspiracy theories.
Following systematic deconstructions in the alternative media, the official account would have come crashing down even without the welcome assistance of Dr. Theodore Postol’s meticulously written refutation. But several days later, while the controversy over the first alleged chemical exposure was still unsettled, as a result of a US bombing raid on rebel targets in the Deirez-Zor area, south of the town of Tabqah, the resulting huge and lethal explosion of chemical materials in terrorist facilities caused the death of several hundred innocent Syrian civilians, including dozens of so far unmourned “beautiful babies.”
Thanks to this probably inadvertent Western coalition hit on the terrorist chemical weapons depot, the key controversial issue left from the first explosion attributed to the Syrian air force was finally settled. Indeed, it turns out the terrorists do have quantities of chemical weapons at their disposal. Their established disregard for human life and rules of civilized conduct in general – not just in warfare – actually makes them prime candidates to be the authors of the politically motivated false flag April 4 outrage.
The vicious suicide bombing the other day, on terrorist-occupied territory, of a column of civilian refugees trying to reach the safety of Syrian government lines, should have further clarified the dilemma (if ever there was one) of who are the “bad” and the “good” guys in this conflict.
In that terror attack, in fact, in addition to numerous adult refugees, at last count about eighty “beautiful babies” were also snuffed out, a Syrian allegation (documented at least as compellingly, if not more, as the preceding one) that was promptly denied by the “usual suspects”. This outrage not merely did not invite the slightest expression of empathy from the ranks of the First Family but it provoked, rather, a torrent of media disinformation designed to obscure the location and circumstances of the lethal attack and to deflect any thought of attributing responsibility for this crime to the obvious, terrorist suspects, as Moon of Alabama amply documented.
“It was the Mother of all Hypocrisy,” according to no less an authority than Robert Fisk, an outstanding reporter but known for his extreme reluctance to step outside the prescribed bounds of carefully balanced and politically correct discourse. Just as in his uncommonly outspoken and indignant comments Fisk points out, not a single missile was launched to avenge the gruesome murders of these “beautiful babies,” presumably because they were perceived to be aligned with the wrong side in the conflict.
That is the context in which within two days of the uninvestigated chemical gassing incident the United States may have crossed the Rubicon in the Syrian war (subsequent “one off” claims notwithstanding) by undertaking a belligerent and aggressive act of the first magnitude: the bombing, unauthorized and uninvited, of the air force facility of a sovereign nation supposedly to avenge the murder of its “beautiful babies.” The specific circumstances of this gross and lethal violation of international norms (resulting, incidentally, in the death caused by stray missiles of a Syrian mother and her four babies, apparently judged by Western governments and media to be of minor significance because it occurred on Syrian government territory) were quite ably dissected by Alexander Mercouris and require no reiteration here.
Cutting it to the chase, two questions arise.
Why was Syria turned into a slaughterhouse to begin with, where an estimated 400,000 babies and adults have needlessly lost their lives? What does the abrupt intensification of unprovoked belligerence under an Administration elected on a peace platform that apparently never was intended to be implemented portend in terms of international relations?
The first question is easy to answer, and it has been dealt with many times over, but in order to understand the moral darkness of these times the answer always bears repetition in all its stark, shocking, and cynical simplicity. It is a war for the control and marketing of vital resources, in accordance with the principle postulated in the infamous Kissinger Memorandum that whoever controls energy and food is ultimately master of mankind. (“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”) Kissinger’s philosophy of global control is but a slight elaboration of the maxim of an earlier fellow German-speaker, Anton Zischka, in his classical “War for Petroleum”: “A drop of petroleum is worth a drop of human blood.” Kissinger and Zischka served competing hegemons, but their amoral mindsets were perfectly aligned.
Plans for what is going on in Syria today go as far back as 1984, as recently disclosed intelligence documents demonstrate. As Tyler Durden points out these long before laid plans “prophetically foreshadow the current crisis” and mayhem. It has nothing to do with barrel bombs or “dictators killing their own people” and everything with installing a compliant Syrian government in order to lay oil and gas pipelines under globalist control in order to bring Western-controlled energents to European markets and thus outflank Russia in the field of energy competition.
That is the logic behind the foreign engineered “regime change” assault in progress since 2011 and all its subsequent variants and modifications, including “Syria balkanization” proposals, various “splinter and control strategies,” and “safe zone” initiatives. Rescuing babies or avenging their callous deaths is not part of that picture.
So far, it has cost 400,000 lives and, down to the last drop of human blood, in the calculus of Madeleine Albright’s eager disciples it was undoubtedly “worth it”.
As for the second question, the answer should give pause to all who would avoid the unnecessary Armageddon that Paul Craig Roberts warns of, and who are rightly shaken by former Ambassador Charles Freeman’s surgically incisive diagnosis that the U.S. government is the “foreign relations equivalent of a sociopath – a country indifferent to the rules, the consequences for others of its ignoring them, and the reliability of its word.”
Philip Giraldi has also spelled it out plain and clear:
“What has become completely clear, as a result of the U.S. strike and its aftermath, is that any general reset with Russia has now become unimaginable, meaning among other things that a peace settlement for Syria is for now unattainable. It also has meant that the rebels against al-Assad’s regime will be empowered, possibly deliberately staging more chemical ‘incidents’ and blaming the Damascus government to shift international opinion farther in their direction. ISIS, which was reeling prior to the attack and reprisal, has been given a reprieve by the same United States government that pledged to eradicate it. And Donald Trump has reneged on his two campaign pledges to avoid deeper involvement in Middle Eastern wars and mend fences with Moscow.”
One can sign off on every word of Giraldi’s take on the matter, but correct as it is, it is but half the picture. The critical and ominous issue is, what is the take of the other nuclear-armed superpower with a genuinely vital, to be exact – existential, national interest in this and a number of other current, potentially conflict-engendering theaters? That superpower is Russia. Only a fool bent on self-destruction would disregard Russia’s view on these matters.
Here is the view of Russia’s influential, superbly informed geopolitical expert and analyst Andrei Akulov, in whose otherwise sparse blurb we merely find that he is “Colonel, retired, Moscow-based expert on international security issues”. Those proficient at deciphering code words will find this modest introduction sufficient and informative, especially in conjunction with Akulov’s voluminous and serious disquisitions on the topics of his expertise.
Ominously, Akulov sees the April 7 retaliatory raid on Syria not as a “one off” event but
“as a new phase in the ongoing war preparations (…) Alleged chemical attacks and other things are obviously used as a pretext to justify large-scale military presence in the entire region.The war in Syria has not been provoked by the recent events. It began long before Donald Trump took office. The incumbent president has not done anything new. He just decided to continue what his predecessor started. In general, the US administration is taking over where George W. Bush, Jr, left off. The president, who called for keeping away from foreign conflicts during the election campaign, has shifted his stance from ‘America First’ to ‘America Omnipresent’.”
The clear implication is that Russia – in whose name Akulov presumes to speak – does not take those pretensions to omnipresence either lightly or benignly. His exposition presents a very reasonable case why that is so and many would agree that it raises some sensible concerns:
“The United States has already entered Syria. Its military is there right now. The US Air Force has recently expanded an air base in northern Syria. The base is near Kobani, which is about 90 miles north of Raqqa, the last urban stronghold for the Islamic State (IS).
“It’s not Syria only. After initially reinforcing the residual forces remaining in-country, America’s military presence (Operation Inherent Resolve) was restored in Iraq in the summer of 2014, commencing a campaign, dominated by air and special operations, allegedly targeting the Islamic State (IS) group. In 2016, US military established the Kobani airfield in Syria and also set up an airfield at Qayarrah West in northern Iraq. The Kobani airstrip has been modified to support C-17s, the largest cargo aircraft which need hardened runway to support their weight, and other planes. In March alone, the airfield was used for at least 50 landings by C-17s and more than 100 landings by C-130 military cargo planes.
“The United States is accessing another airstrip near the newly retaken Tabqa Dam, north of Raqqa that was taken by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces on March 26. The capture of Tabqa airfield about 110 kilometers north of Raqqa would be used in the same way as Qayyarah Airfield West in Iraq is being used for operations to retake Mosul. When finished, Tabka airfield will enable the US to deploy twice as many warplanes and helicopters in Syria as the Russians currently maintain. It is already dubbed «Incirlik 2» or «Qayyarah-2».
“The new base is designed to accommodate the 2,500 US military personnel housed at Incirlik, Turkey. The administration is on the way to pull US air force units out of Turkey, to the five new and expanded air bases in Syria. In 2003, Ankara refused to let the US and its allies use its airspace when the invasion of Iraq started. The decision on airspace was reversed later but the Turkish parliament voted against the use of military bases on Turkish soil. As a result, the US operations in Iraq were significantly hindered. Now the US will not depend on Turkey anymore if Syria’s airspace is open for American flights. This is part of broader plans …
“Escalation is considered elsewhere. Another 2,500 paratroopers have been placed at a staging base in Kuwait. The military leaders have petitioned Congress and the White House for more troops, and the White House is considering loosening the rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Somalia. Add to this the reported plans to escalate US military involvement in Yemen.”
Faced with such a strategic panorama, in Russia it is considered entirely reasonable to ask:
What is going on here? Where is this headed?
Are we taking all reasonable measures to ensure our country’s and our children’s safety in the face of these rampaging Rambos?
Indeed, evidence is mounting of a growing consensus, not just in the Kremlin but throughout Russia, that “Trumpomania” is over and that having to pick the more dangerous of two apparently unstable leaders – Kim Jong-Un or Donald Trump – Russians in droves are voting for the American candidate.
Russia’s most influential television commentator Dmitry Kiselyov declared on Sunday, upon the departure of Secretary Rex Tillerson from Moscow, that
“the world is a hair’s breadth from nuclear war. War can break out as a result of confrontation between two personalities: Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Both are dangerous, but who is more dangerous? Trump is.”
Many will find the reasons for Kiselyov’s analysis, shall we say, interesting. According to him,
“Trump was ‘more impulsive and unpredictable’than the North Korean and both men share some of the same negative traits: ‘Limited international experience, unpredictability, and a readiness to go to war.’”
No compliments there for the chief American “partner.” As for the Kremlin’s perspective, Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov was most ambiguous and diplomatic about it. Kiselyov’s views weren’t necessarily always interchangeable with the official position, however “his position is close, but not every time.”
Interpret as one will Peskov’s cryptic words, it does not seem to be very distant from the stance of a growing body of the Russian public:
“A survey by state pollster VTsIOM showed on Monday that the percentage of Russians who hold a negative view of Trump has jumped to 39 from seven percent in a month, and that feelings of distrust and disappointment towards him have grown too (…) “The U.S. missile strike on Syria was a ‘cold shower’ for many Russians,” said Valery Fedorov, the pollster’s general director.”
And to add just one more nuance of complexity to this increasingly eschatological brew, it so happens that, according to the Ku’ran, Syria is situated in the very heart of the end of history. According to Islamic scriptures, when history comes to an end the False Messiah (The Antichrist) will be challenged by Jesus Christ, who will descend from heaven, and the place of their final encounter will be – Damascus. The Last Judgment, we are told by Islamic teaching, will also occur there.
I wanted to check the authenticity of these portents and I asked my good friend Sheikh Imran Hossein, the foremost authority on Islamic eschatology, to enlighten me. This is his response:
Greetings of peace and love!
There are 3 main actors in the world in the End-time and they are:
The advent of the False Messiah (al-Masih al-Dajjal)
The advent of the Prince (Imam al-Mahdi)
The return of the True Messiah (al-Masih ‘Isa ibn Maryam)
Islamic eschatology locates all three in Damascus in Syria at the same time – hence the End-time importance of Syria.
Also, Islamic eschatology locates the Great War commencing in the region of Syria north of Damascus.
In view of these cheerful End-time prognoses, President Trump would perform a great public service if he took some eschatology lessons with Sheikh Imran before ordering his next missile strike, in Syria or anywhere else.
Anton Zischka: Ölkrieg, GoldmannVerlag, Leipzig 1939