John Harding’s book, Escape from Paradise – Paperback and Kindle Versions


Click!

Now, available in Kindle and Paperback! Free Kindle if you purchase Paperback. After buying Paperback, go for the free Kindle!

It took me two and a half evenings to complete your un-put-downable book…it is a unique contribution to the appreciation of a life in Singapore. Thank you for having written it. C. V. Devan Nair, former President of Singapore.

Bought the book from Select this weekend and can’t put it down! It’s a great read! And so nostalgic for me—the good old days! Glen Goei, writer and director of the Miramax film That’s the Way I Like It and who played the title role opposite Anthony Hopkins in the London production of M. Butterfly. Mr. Goei’s latest film is The Blue Mansion – Click for the trailer!

It is a remarkable story and so full of intrigue that it reads at times like fiction.Jonathan Burnham, Editor in Chief & President, Talk Miramax Books.

“It’s quite a story The legendary Alice Mayhew, Vice-President & Editorial Director, Simon & Schuster.

This book out-Dallas, Dallas. No one has written so well of the other side of paradise,Francis T. Seow, former Solicitor General of Singapore

ThunderBall Films is successfully putting together the movie production of Escape from Paradise and has received a new LOI (Letter of Intent) from actress Bai Ling who starred with Richard Gere in the film Red Cross.

This includes a commitment from a CPA firm who does tax credit financing in Ireland, a possible location to film, as part of the package needed for investors – along with the CPA firm’s commitment to apply for and finance the tax credits if ThunderBall does shoot in Ireland and what portion of the budget they would provide.
For inquiries, please contact John Harding at jbharding@gmail.com.

Escape from Paradise – the Promotional Trailer

Saudi Money Rules

Saudi Arabia's Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef and UK Prime Minister David Cameron in London

Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef and UK Prime Minister David Cameron in London

The British Government has signed a secret security pact with Saudi Arabia and is now attempting to prevent its details from being made public.

Home Secretary Theresa May agreed to the so-called “memorandum of understanding” with her Saudi counter-part, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, during a visit to the Kingdom last year.

The Home Office kept details of her trip secret at the time and did not announce that any deal had been signed.

But following a Freedom of Information request from the Liberal Democrats it has been revealed that an agreement was made and is far wider than had been assumed.

In refusing to publish details of the agreement, the Home Office has admitted it “contains information relating to the UK’s security co-operation with Saudi Arabia” and that releasing the document “would damage the UK’s bilateral relationship” with the Kingdom and potentially damage Britain’s national security.

In February, the Kingdom adopted a new anti-terrorism law that defines terrorism as words or actions deemed by the authorities to be directly or

Saudi Arabia's Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef and U.S. President Obama in Washington

Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef and U.S. President Obama in Washington

indirectly “disturbing” to public order or “destabilizing the security of society” as well as “seeking to disrupt national unity” or “engaging in atheism” or by calling for protests.

The Saudi Ministry of the Interior is also responsible for carrying out executions such as the threatened beheading of Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr for taking part in anti-government protests and allegedly attacking security forces when he was 17. Mr Ali al-Nimr supporters claim he was tortured while detention. For Saudi Arabia, there is nothing wrong with this as the country follows the Wahhabi version of Islam, the same as ISIS does.

In an attempt to placate the Saudi’s concern over the matter and bow to their will, David Cameron has sent a personal message to King Salman bin Abdul Aziz bin Saud, while the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was dispatched to rush to Riyadh to apologize for the matter.

The bottom line is that Saudi money rules, not only in the U.S., but in the UK, as well.

Saudi money rules, and has ruled for a long time—not just in the UK, but in the  U.S., as well.

The author, John Harding, has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for nine  years.

With Medical Tourism And Economic Growth In Mind, Doctors Launch Plessen Healthcare

ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS — A group of doctors, the Plessen Medical Group LLC, has started a venture that has given rise to an all-new product in St. Croix—medical tourism.

Since St. Croix is a U.S. territory, Plessen accepts both Medicare and Medicaid along with most major insurance plans. Being part of the English speaking U.S., St. Croix offers the best, safest, most practical and economical site for U.S. medical tourism. The availability of Medicare,and Medicaid alone is a major benefit that is virtually unique to Plessen as a medical tourism site.

PMGviconsortiumInline2015_2

Plessen Healthcare’s facility, encompassing the entire lower floor of the new Government Employees’ Retirement System building, is a state-of-the-art operation with a heavy focus on eye care. The offices include a receptionist, secretary, doctors’ offices and a conference room. On the east side of the building, however, a whole new world meets the eye. There’s a waiting area where patients sit before undergoing surgery, but one could almost feel the energy in the post-operation rooms, where lively nurses work with steady confidence that relays a relaxing aura to those waiting to be operated on.

Plessen Healthcare boasts 22 employees, including a team of dedicated physicians and nurse practitioners, offering a wide range of general services and internal medicine sub-specialties dedicated to chronic disease prevention.

The firm’s CEO, Jan B. Tawakol, M.D., is a well-known surgeon from Phoenix, Arizona. According to Dr. Tawakol, the idea for what is now Plessen Healthcare was conceived four years ago, out of a need to help the Juan F. Luis Hospital (JFL) of St. Croix, during a time when it faced many challenges.

Dr. Jan B. Tawakol describing a state-of-the-art eye surgery machine.

Dr. Jan B. Tawakol describing a state-of-the-art eye surgery machine.

“The hospital, at that time, had a lot of problems,” said Dr. Tawakol, “and a number of the physicians in the hospital came together with the idea of creating a platform outside of the hospital that could be utilized, on one side, by investors to invest money in the healthcare system, and by physicians to come and use it as a facility or a platform, and therefore by the patients, who would benefit from it directly by having some services available that the hospital doesn’t provide in an outpatient setting.”

Plessen Healthcare will be working hand-in-hand with JFL on the essential front of providing care when a patient is treated at the hospital and needs continuous care—making it “easier for the hospital to discharge patients, because there’s somebody else on the outside ready to take care of them,” said. Dr. Tawakol.

Yet, the consideration of JFL was only part of a multi-pronged venture, and Dr. Tawakol described medical tourism, as having the most potential for St. Croix. For residents of St. Croix, he said, Plessen Healthcare will be a major economic benefit, as the territory loses $100 million yearly from residents who leave to pursue medical services that wer not available in St Croix, prior to the establishment of Plessen Healthcare.

In addition, Plessen Healthcare will be a great medical tourism site for those coming from mainland U.S. especially for those with Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Dr. Tawakol stated, “Our goal is to promote St. Croix as a medical tourism destination and collaborate with Department of Tourism, with the hotels and tourism infrastructure here to make this a more pleasant and affordable destination.”

Both local and foreign investors have stakes in Plessen Healthcare. The group has built a state-of-the-art facility that incorporates the most update-to-date features, and has been inspected by the Accreditation Association of Ambulatory Healthcare. AAAHC has already evaluated Plessen Healthcare on behalf of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, surveying the group on clinical operation as well as life safety—including a detailed inspection of the facility’s construction, which Dr. Tawakol revealed was built using the latest guidelines. After inspection reviews, results of which are expected anytime, CMS is expected to grant Plessen Healthcare CMS participation.

Dr. Kevin Stewart

Inside the ambulatory surgical center, there are two operating rooms and another area that holds five post-operation patients. Plessen Healthcare performs roughly 30 surgeries weekly—and growing.

The facility is built and the need is great, but “St. Croix needs more physicians” if the idea of medical tourism is to be successful, Dr. Tawakol said. He said in order to attract physicians to the territory, these doctors must be given the ability to work with inpatients and outpatients, meaning, provision should be made that gives the physicians freedom to practice at the hospital and at private practices.

“I think this is a perfect combination where we’re able to be in collaboration with the hospital, where we can attract physicians that would provide services at the hospital—that’s where we crucially need them to provide inpatient services—and some work outside as well. And this is what would attract physicians here. Not only are they looking for a combination of the two—which would see these physicians becoming of great use inside the OR of the hospitals, in intensive care and where you need additional services,” Dr. Tawakol said, his calm demeanor not successful at masking the passion for what he sees as a great opportunity for the U.S. medical tourism.

 

Obama’s Cover-Up for Saudi Arabia and ISIS

FBI Director, James Comey

FBI Director, James Comey

FBI Director James Comey is leading a cover-up for FBI incompetence and for Obama’s pro-Muslim policies. Comey said on Wednesday there is no evidence a married couple who killed 14 people in California this month were part of a terrorist cell.

What about their Hispanic neighbor,  Enrique Marquez, who was in on a plot with Syed Farook to kill Americans?

FBI officials have revealed that Enrique Marquez, a convert to Islam, purchased the rifles used in the San Bernardino terror attack—doesn’t that qualify as a terrorist cell. Marquez had plotted with Syed Farook in 2012 to carry out a similar attack to those that Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik carried out last week – is that not conspiracy to commit a crime?

The fact that Marquez is finally in jail is proof of at least a three-person terrorist cell—the other two being Mr. and Mrs. Farook.

In allegedly attempting to aid and abet another terrorist, Comey said that “authorities” believe Mohammed Abdulazeez, the suspect in July’s fatal shooting of four U.S. Marines and a Navy sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was radicalized by militant propaganda. This is another of Comey’s apologies to Radical Islam.

“Twitter works as a way to sell books, as a way to promote movies, and it works as a way to crowdsource terrorism—to sell murder,” Comey said, passing the blame on to Twitter.

ISIS also frequently employs encrypted communications, Comey said. He renewed his calls for technology companies to avoid creating devices and services that cannot be accessed, even with a proper court order. Didn’t America crack secret codes way back in WWII? Why are they not doing that today?

Meanwhile ISIS marches on as in the southern Iraq desert they ambushed and abducted at least 26 hunters from a Qatari safari. The kidnapping victims were said to include some members of senior Qatari royalty.

Saudi Arabia Helps ISIS in Yemen

Saudi attacks were underway Wednesday along several front lines in Yemen, claiming at least 42 lives and breaking a day-old U.N.-brokered cease-fire and peace talks between the internationally recognized government and Shiite rebels taking place in Switzerland.

According to U.N. figures, the war in Yemen has killed at least 5,884 people since March, when the fighting escalated after the Saudi-led coalition began launching airstrikes targeting the rebels. So what “Saudi-led coalition” is this? It appears to be yet another Saudi backing of their Sunni Wahhabi allies—ISIS.

Nine months of war between a Saudi-led military coalition and a Yemeni rebel group have left thousands of civilians dead, has given rise to a new branch of ISIS.

Saudi Arabia Falsely Claims Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon and Malaysia are in its “34-country coalition”

Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Defense Minister, and Deputy Crown Prince

Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Defense Minister, and Deputy Crown Prince

Officials in Pakistan said Wednesday that they had not been consulted by anyone in Saudi Arabia before their nation was described as a founding member of a new, 34-country “Islamic military alliance” to fight terrorism announced late Monday night by the Saudi defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman, the 30-year-old deputy crown prince .

“This is not the first time that Saudi Arabia has named Pakistan as part of its military alliances without Islamabad’s knowledge and consent,” the Dawn correspondent Baqir Sajjad Syed reported. “The Saudis earlier named Pakistan as part of the coalition that carried out operations in Yemen and a Pakistani flag was displayed at the alliance’s media center. Pakistan later declined to join the Yemen war.”

Malaysia’s defense minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, said Tuesday that while his nation did support the Saudi effort, “there is no military commitment, but it is more of an understanding that we are together in the combat against militancy.” Malaysia was also on the list of 34 nations described as members by the Saudi government. The Malaysian official also suggested that the alliance, which was announced after prodding from Obama for Saudi Arabia to play a larger role in the fight against Islamic State militants, might have been hastily assembled. “I received a call from their defense minister two days ago,” Mr. Hussein said.

A spokesman for Indonesia’s foreign ministry clarified on Wednesday that his nation, which was described as one of 10 countries supporting but not participating in the larger alliance, was awaiting more details about the initiative before deciding whether to take part in any way.

The description of the alliance as one of “a group of Islamic states,” set up to “fight every terrorist organization,” also caused confusion in Lebanon, where a Christian minister objected, and the nation’s foreign minister and prime minister did not agree they had joined.

Saudi Arabia lacks the credibility to form any coalition

More than 2,500 Saudis have joined ISIS, according to analysts, while Tashfeen Malik, the wife of the Muslim couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., two weeks ago, had spent extensive time in Saudi Arabia and may have been radicalized while there.

Can Saudi Arabia truly present an alternative to ISIS ideology? For decades, it has wielded control over religious institutions yet failed to curb extremism, while spreading ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam that has given rise to jihad and ISIS.

“There is a sense among many that ISIS is Saudi Arabia’s main ideology,” says Ebrahim Moosa, professor of Islamic Studies at Notre Dame University.
Saudi Arabia has attempted to organize Muslim states in the past. In 1969, then-King Faisal founded the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a committee of 57 Muslim states dedicated to further Muslim causes.

The OIC has failed to oppose jihad and ISIS, as jihad is a main part of Islam. It is this very lack of an authoritative voice, free of politics that has created the ideological vacuum allowing groups like ISIS to emerge.

Obama, in defending his anti-ISIS strategy, has long called for alliance partners in the region to supply the “boots on the ground” necessary to augment American air power.

But Saudi Arabia and many of its Arabian Gulf allies such as Qatar and the UAE claim to be bogged down in Yemen. In reality, they are not going to fight ISIS, who they are now backing.

“Saudi Arabia is ISIS,” you will hear most Middle Easterners say.

The author, John Harding, has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for nine  years.

Saudi Arabia’s coalition is a cover for ISIS

Saudi Crown Price Mohammed bin Salman and Obama

Saudi Deputy Crown Price Mohammed bin Salman and Obama

Even though Saudi Arabia said all the right things in announcing their 34-nation Islamic military coalition against terrorism, their words were only a sham.

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman said that the new coalition underscores “the Islamic world’s vigilance in fighting” the scourge of terrorism.

His words are only for show aimed at appeasing the world that after the Paris and San Bernardino attacks.

“The Saudis are under a lot of pressure, for what they’re doing in Yemen, from the accusations that they’re spreading Wahhabi ideology [i.e. ISIS ideology}, and for what they are not doing on the military side of the US-led coalition to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. So I can see that this would have some propaganda value for them,” says Aaron David Miller, a former US diplomat in Middle Eastern affairs who is now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington.

The Wahhabi interpretation of Islam began with 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, who despised “the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who traveled across Arabia to pray at Mecca.”

The present-day Saudi royal family has, for many years, have used Wahhabi teachings to control the common people of their country. However, the royal family members are not necessarily Wahhabi believers themselves.

“We already have a coalition of 65 countries engaged in the fight to defeat ISIS, and only a half dozen of those countries count and are of any practical value,” Miller adds. “So I just don’t see how a coalition of 34 very diverse Muslim countries is going to have any more than symbolic value.”

More precisely, how can Saudi Arabia, the founder and supporter of ISIS, join any coalition to defeat ISIS? ISIS is the child of Wahhabi ideology, the Saudi brand of radical Islam.

“I think [the new coalition] is more symbolic than anything. It’s a response to international criticisms that the Saudis aren’t doing enough to stop ISIS,” says Farea al-Muslimi, a specialist in Gulf and Yemeni politics at the Carnegie Endowment’s Middle East Center in Beirut, Lebanon.

Even Senator John Kasich in the December 15 Republican Presidential debate, fell for the propaganda, citing twice the Saudi coalition as a partner of the U.S. in the war against ISIS. In the same debate, Mario Rubio mentioned several times that Sunni fighters would hopefully join the U.S. in fighting ISIS. Sunni boots on the ground is highly unlikely, as the Sunnis are more apt to be for ISIS than not. Even Jeb Bush stated that we needed Arab help to defeat ISIS.

Muslim countries have acted in ways that have abetted ISIS, Muslimi says. For example, Saudi Arabia’s nine months of military intervention in Yemen has paved the way for ISIS to expand in the country’s south, he says.

“It’s an easy hitchhike for ISIS” to benefit from chaos and the breakdown in government authority in a poor country like Yemen, Muslimi says.

At a press conference in Paris, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir cited the case of Libya, where the U.S. on Hillary Clinton’s convincing of Obama to overthrow Libya’s government which plunged the country into civil war, allowing ISIS to establish in Libya what is now considered to be their second most important base of operations after Raqqa in Syria.

The Saudi 34-nation coalition is headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where it will do little or nothing. This is why the Saudis have provided scant information about the real goal of their coalition.

The US, Russia, and other powers are trying to reach a cease-fire accord and political transition plan for Syria aimed at ending the country’s nearly 5-year-old civil war. Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow Tuesday meeting with President Vladimir Putin, and Syria talks are to continue in New York on Friday.

What Saudi Arabia is really doing is shown by their war in Yemen against the Shiite-sect Houthis, which is much like the ISIS Saudi proxy war to unseat Shiites in Syria. In Yemen the Saudi bombings has led to an opening of southern Yemen to ISIS control, Muslimi says, “One more day of this war is 10 golden days for ISIS.”

This can be added to the Saudi’s “golden days” for ISIS in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Paris and Bakersfield, California where a Pakistani/Saudi woman murdered Americans.

 

The author, John Harding, lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for nine years.

Saudi Arabia trying to ruin U.S. oil business

Ali Naimi the man who is out to wreck U.S. crude oill production

Ali Naimi, the man who is out to wreck U.S. crude oill production

With non-OPEC producers like the U.S. churning out record amounts of oil, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter, has decided to lower its oil prices until it drives U.S. producers out of business.

The leader in this effort is Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Petroleum. The task of destroying U.S. oil production is easy for Naimi and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has the lowest cost of oil production in the world, somewhere around $2.00 per barrel, for below the lowest cost of U.S. shale oil, which is around $10.00.

The mathematics is easy. If the price of crude slips even close to $10.00 per barrel or even below $30.00, the U.S. is out of business, while Saudi Arabia will be raking in a profit of at least four-hundred to five-hundred percent gross profit.

“His biggest move was the latest one of defending Saudi market share, and abandoning the OPEC swing role,” said Mohammad al-Sabban, a former adviser to Mr. Naimi.

Naimi’s move to destroy U.S. oil production was over the objections of other strong-willed OPEC ministers at last November’s meeting of OPEC, which ended in a shouting match.

Naimi has also garnered criticism both from within OPEC and outside of it.

Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that Naimi’s abandonment of Saudi Arabia and OPEC’s role as a guardian of high oil prices will destroy U.S. oil production.

Naimi’s actions go beyond killing U.S. oil production; it helps ISIS, which is financed by the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia to defeat the Shiites of Syria.

According to a recent New York Times article, Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It, Saudi Arabia is not only the major backer of ISIS, it is the founder of ISIS. This is common knowledge in the Middle East. President Obama somehow includes Saudi Arabia and other gulf states in his 65-country coalition, even though he knows that ISIS will not fight ISIS.

Naimi was born in Saudi Arabia, just as oil was discovered there. He got his start in the oil business when he became an errand boy at Aramco at the age of 12 in 1947. Thanks to Aramco, Naimi studied in the U.S. and then rejoined the company, marching quickly through the ranks of what became known as Saudi Aramco. He became president in 1984 and chief executive officer in 1988. He was named oil minister in 1995 by Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. I knew Naimi when I worked for Aramco in the late ’70s. Then, he was a small, quiet, mild-mannered fellow. Naimi and I even had a class together at Aramco, where he pointed out to me that even though Saudi sheep look like goats, they are actually sheep.

To me, Naimi seemed like a nice guy – then.

The author, John Harding, lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for nine years.

Facial Profiling – How to Spot a Radical Muslim

Radical Islam is based on the Hadith

In Islam, an Hadith is represented as being a saying of Muhammad or a report about something he did. Over time, it became obvious that many so-called Hadiths were in fact spurious and fabricated sayings which teach Radical Islam.

Beliefs such as the 70 virgins waiting to please suicide bombers, are from the Hadith and are not to be found in the Quran.

Today’s Imams preach the Radical Islam of the Hadith, not the Quran.

“Shaving the beard is forbidden, according to what has been  narrated by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad and others, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar, who fabricated this quote from Mohammed: “Be different from the polytheists, and grow your beards and shorten your moustaches” (Al-Bukhari no. 5892 and Muslim no. 259. Muslim no. 260). Ibn Umar repeated this falsehood in his Hadith no. 488, which states, “Trim closely the moustache, and let the beard flow.” – Ibn Umar, Hadith no. 498.

Only Radical Islam follows the practice of trimming the moustache and not the beard. This makes it very easy for us to spot the followers of Radical Islam by facial profiling.

Easy-to-follow, real-life examples of Male Radical Islamists easily identifiable by their mustache and beard

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez02

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez. who killed four marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee on July 16, 2015

“He is being treated as a homegrown violent extremist,” said FBI Special Agent Ed Reinhold. Under pressure from the Obama administration, the FBI was not able to tell the truth and report that the killer was a terrorist. Note that this terrorist has a trimmed mustache with a longer beard.

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez – Going, Going, Gone!

Here we see that progress of the terrorists progression from a clean-shaven face to a Radical Islamist terrorist beard.

Notable examples of Radical Islamists easily identifiable by their mustache and beard

ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi

ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi

Osama bin-Laden

Osama bin-Laden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy-to-follow, real-life examples of Female Radical Islamists easily identifiable by attire

Tashfeen Malik

Tashfeen Malik, wife of Syed Farook – ISIS Bakersfield Bomber

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton pretending for the crowd

If a Muslim woman covers her hair or hides her face in public in a non-Islamic country, she is a member of Radical Islam. Again, this “rule” comes from the Radical Islamic Hadith. When in Saudi Arabia, in private places, I saw many Muslim women dressed quite normally, with no hiding of their hair or face. At a party in Saudi Arabia, I have even met the Lady in Waiting to Saudi Queen Iffat dressed normally with no vale or scarf.

The author of this report, John Harding, former United Nations Expert, has lived and worked for 9 years in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and for 9 years in Singapore. He is intimately familiar with the Middle East and Southeast Asia. He is in daily communication with his sources in both these areas.

Obama’s Denial of Terrorist Links in the Bakersfield Massacre

Obama

Obama

Obama’s stance on whether or not the Bakersfield Massacre was a terrorist act cannot be explained as “political correctness.” Now, Obama , his forcing the FBI to take the position that the two killers are not part of a larger organization, but just “lone wolves.” Why?

It may be part of Obama’s political agenda, akin to his rules of engagement which prevents the U.S. from doing much physical damage to ISIS.

Maybe not. Maybe, Obama knows something the American public doesn’t know and is not supposed to know.

The FBI is saying that Farook had no contacts with any terrorist cell in the U.S. They seem to ignore the fact that they, themselves, admitted that he had telephone conversations with people who were “of interest” to the FBI, but discounted their possible importance.

The FBI also lifted the court order on Farook’s apartment and turned it back over to the owner, without dusting the place for any fingerprints —fingerprints that could easily lead to an extended group of jihadists.

The FBI director, James Comey, even went on television to say that Farook and his wife had no terrorist connections – no cell links. Interesting to note, that Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, was sitting next to him and watching him closely, looking a bit like a stern schoolmarm.

It appears that by denying that the terrorists had any connections, Obama is trying to protect those connections.

The attacker, Syed Farook, made several trips to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to meet and marry his wife, attacker Tashfeen Malik. The fact that Farook made three strips to Saudi Arabia, may not seem strange to some. However, if you have ever been through the Saudi visa process, you know that it is virtually impossible to obtain an entry visa to Saudi Arabia. To obtain such a visa, you have to be hired by a company in Saudi Arabia, or have a request put in by for you by someone of influence in the kingdom—and maybe that someone is Farook’s ISIS connection.

The last thing that Obama would want would be to have someone in Saudi Arabia turn out to be Farook’s ISIS contact.

Obama does not want to see that connection made.

Is Obama a Sunni Muslim?

ISIS Ramadi Victory Parade - Undefended and not Bombed by the US. Why?

ISIS Ramadi Victory Parade – Undefended and not Bombed by the US. Why?

Iraq’s suspicion that the Obama is on the side of ISIS runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants – naturally, these videos will never be reported by the U.S. media. (In addition, the U.S. media has concealed the report that in Obama’s childhood home, Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah, affiliated with ISIS, recently beheaded a Chinese man.)

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions.

Col. Steve Warren, the U.S. military’s Baghdad-based spokesman admits, “There’s clearly no one in the West who buys it, but unfortunately, this is something that a segment of the Iraqi population believes.”

In one example of how little leverage the United States now has, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi reject the announcement Tuesday that an expeditionary force of U.S. troops will be dispatched to Iraq to conduct raids. He stated, “There is no need for foreign ground combat troops. Any such support and special operations anywhere in Iraq can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty.” U.S. warplanes fail to respond to requests for air support because of Obama’s rules of engagement that prevents strikes if there is a risk civilians may be hit, he said. The rules of engagement also insures that ISIS oil income, which is provided by selling to Islamist Turkey, is protected.

The U.S. and coalition partners have targeted ISIS with the paltry number of 8,289 airstrikes — 5,432 in Iraq and 2,857 in Syria, through November 19, the Pentagon says. “We’d be better off without them,” said 1st Lt. Murtada Fadl, who is serving with the Iraqi elite forces in Baiji. He said that the only air support had come from the Iraqi air force and that he wishes the government would ask the Russians to replace the Americans.

Mustafa Alani, director of the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center states, “Mosul was lost and the Americans did nothing. Syria was lost and the Americans did nothing. Paris is attacked and the Americans aren’t doing much. So people believe this is a deliberate policy. They can’t believe the American leadership fails to understand the developments in the region, and so the only other explanation is that this is part of a conspiracy.”

Of all the Islamic countries, Iraq was the most secular. Freedom of religion was guaranteed, women filled the university halls as students and professors without requirement to cover their heads. Even Jews’ safety was guaranteed in the Iraq that the USA destroyed.

And what about Obama’s coalition of 65 countries to fight ISIS? Do we see any Saudi airstrikes or boots on the ground against ISIS? It has been charged that Saudi Arabia is the de-fact founder of ISIS which would mean they have troops on the ground—fighting the U.S.

And what about Obama’s “good” rebels? The Turkmen rebels who killed the Russian pilot and marine, provide a route for ISIS oil into Turkey. Another “good” rebel group that Obama supports is Omar al-Farouq, whose leader, Abu Sakkar, made Youtube by eating the liver of a slain Syrian soldier. Last but not least are Obama’s prize half-billion dollar rebels. Their number dwindled to about five “good” rebels who either had their arms taken away by ISIS – or sold for a profit.

Under King Salman and his son 30 year old Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the defense minister, Saudi Arabia is trying to position itself as the leader of the Arab world. Saudi King Salman is in his 80s and Prince Mohammed is next in line to the throne.

Obama has worked to replace admittedly bad dictatorships in Iraq, Syria and Libya with ISIS. He will not use the expression “Radical Islam.” I proved through computer de-construction, in our blog, that Obama’s birth certificate was forged. This is not to say that Obama was born in Kenya, but to point out that the circumstances of his birth have been concealed – as has much other information regarding Obama’s early days.

Obama’s behavior is consistent with his being a Sunni Muslim.

The author of this report, John Harding, has lived and worked for 9 years in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and for 9 years in Singapore. He is intimately familiar with the Middle East and Southeast Asia. He is in daily communication over the dark web with his sources in both these areas.

The Anti-Empire Report #140

A guest post By William Blum – Published November 3rd, 2015

Are you confused by the Middle East? Here are some things you should know. (But you’ll probably still be confused.)

  • The US, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the Gulf monarchies have all in the recent past supported al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State (ISIS) with arms, money, and/or manpower.
  • The first example of this was in 1979 when the United States began covert operations in Afghanistan, six months before the Russians arrived, promoting Islamic fundamentalism across the southern tier of the Soviet Union against “godless communism”. All the al-Qaeda/Taliban shit then followed.
  • In addition to Afghanistan, the United States has provided support to Islamic militants in Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, the Caucasus, and Syria.
  • The United States overthrew the secular governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and is trying to do the same with Syria, thus giving great impetus to the rise of ISIS. Said Barack Obama in March of this year: “ISIS is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”
  • More than a million refugees from these wars of Washington are currently over-running Europe and North Africa. God Bless American exceptionalism.
  • The Iraqi, Syrian and Turkish Kurds have all fought against ISIS, but Turkey – close US ally and member of NATO – has fought against each of them.
  • Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanese factions have each supported the Syrian government in various ways in Damascus’s struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups, including the (much celebrated but seldom seen) “moderate” ones. For this all four countries have been sharply criticized by Washington.
  • The United States has bombed ISIS in Syria, but has used the same occasions to damage Syria’s infrastructure and oil-producing capacity.
  • Russia has bombed ISIS in Syria, but has used the same occasions to attack Syria’s other enemies.
  • The mainstream media almost never mentions the proposed Qatar natural-gas pipelines – whose path to Europe Syria has stood in the way of for years – as a reason for much of the hostility toward Syria. The pipelines could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant source of energy.
  • In Libya, during the beginning of the 2011 civil war, anti-Gaddafi rebels, many of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO in “no-fly zones”.
  • US policy in Syria in the years leading up to the 2011 uprising against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, which began the whole current mess, was designed to promote sectarianism, which in turn led to civil war with the goal of regime change.
  • US Secretary of State John Kerry declared on October 22 that in resolving Syria’s civil war the country “should not be broken up, that it must remain secular, and that Syrians should choose their future leader.” (All of which actually describes Syria under Assad.) Then Kerry said: “One thing stands in the way of being able to rapidly move to implement that, and it’s a person called Assad, Bashar Assad.”

Why does the government of the United States hate Syrian president Bashar al-Assad with such passion?

Is it because, as we’re told, he’s a brutal dictator? But how can that be the reason for the hatred? It would be difficult indeed to name a brutal dictatorship of the second half of the 20th Century or of the 21st century that was not supported by the United States; not only supported, but often put into power and kept in power against the wishes of the population; at present the list would include Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Indonesia, Egypt, Colombia, Qatar, and Israel.

The United States, I suggest, is hostile to the Syrian government for the same reason it has been hostile to Cuba for more than half a century; and hostile to Venezuela for the past 15 years; and earlier to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; and to Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Chile; and so on continuing through the world atlas and history books.

What these governments have had in common can be summarized in a single word – independence … independence from American foreign policy; the refusal to be a client state of Washington; the refusal to be continuously hostile to Washington’s Officially Designated Enemies; insufficient respect and zeal for the capitalist way of life.

Democratic Socialism

The candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a “democratic socialist”, for the US presidency has produced an unprecedented barrage of discussion in the American media about just what is this thing called “socialism”. Most of the discussion centers around the question of government ownership and control of the economy versus private ownership and control. This is, of course, a very old question; the meat and potatoes of the Cold War ideological competition.

What’s markedly different now is that a few centuries of uninhibited free enterprise have finally laid painfully bare the basic anti-social nature of capitalism, forcing many of even the most committed true believers to concede the inherent harm the system brings to the lives of all but the richest.

But regardless of what the intellects of these true believers tell them, they still find it very difficult emotionally to completely cut the umbilical cord to the system they were carefully raised to place the greatest of faith in. Thus, they may finally concede that we have to eliminate, or at least strictly minimize, the role of the profit motive in health care and education and maybe one or two other indispensable social needs, but they insist that the government should should keep its bureaucratic hands off everything else; they favor as much decentralization as possible.

The most commonly proposed alternative to both government or private control is worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Sanders has expressed his support for worker-owned cooperatives.

There is much to be said about such systems, but the problem I find is that they will still operate within a capitalist society, which means competition, survival of the fittest; which means that if you can’t sell more than your competitors, if you can’t make a sufficient net profit on your sales, you will likely be forced to go out of business; and to prevent such a fate, at some point you may very well be forced to do illegal or immoral things against the public; which means back to the present.

You cannot follow the mass media without being confronted every day with story after story of one corporation or another trying to swindle the public in one way or another; the latest egregious case being that of the much revered Volkswagen, recently revealed to have manipulated the measurement of the car’s pollution emission. The fact that half of the company’s Supervisory Board – responsible for monitoring the Management and approving important corporate decisions – consists of employee representatives elected by the employees did not prevent this egregious fraud; the company is still obliged to strive to maximize profit and the firm’s stock-market value. It’s the nature of the corporate beast within a capitalist jungle.

Only removal of the profit motive will correct such behavior, and also keep us from drowning in a sea of advertising and my phone ringing several times each day to sell me something I don’t need and which may not even exist.

The market. How can we determine the proper value, the proper price, of goods and services without “the magic of the marketplace”? Let’s look at something most people have to pay for – rent. Who or what designed this system where in 2015 11.8 million households in the US are paying more than 50 percent of their income to keep a roof over their head, while rent is considered “affordable” if it totals some 30 percent or less of one’s income. What is the sense of this? It causes more hardship than any other expense people are confronted with; all kinds of important needs go unmet because of the obligation to pay a huge amount for rent each month; it is the main cause of homelessness. Who benefits from it other than the landlords? What is magical about that?

Above and beyond any other consideration, there is climate change; i.e., survival of the planet, the quality of our lives. What keeps corporations from modifying their behavior so as to be kinder to our environment? It is of course the good old “bottom line” again. What can we do to convince the corporations to consistently behave like good citizens? Nothing that hasn’t already been tried and failed. Except one thing. Unmentionable in a capitalist society. Nationalization. There, I said it. Now I’ll be getting letters damning me as an “Old Stalinist”.

But nationalization is not a panacea either, at least for the environment. There’s the greatest single source of environmental damage in the world – The United States military. And it’s already been nationalized. But doing away with private corporations will reduce the drive toward imperialism sufficiently that before long the need for a military will fade away and we can live like Costa Rica. If you think that would put the United States in danger of attack, please tell me who would attack, and why.

Most Americans, like other developed peoples, worship the capitalism they were raised with. But do they? See the chapter in my book Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower: “The United States invades, bombs, and kills for it but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?” Written in 2000/2005, the examples given in the chapter may need some updating, but the ideas expressed are as valid as ever.

Nationalization, hand-in-hand with a planned society, would of course not preclude elections. On the contrary, we’d have elections not ruled by money. What a breath of fresh air. Professor Cornel West has suggested that it’s become difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic society, without great concentrations of corporate power, would look like, or how it would operate.

Who are you going to believe? Me or Dick Cheney?

I’ve spent about 30 years compiling the details of the criminal record of US foreign policy into concise lists, and I’m always looking for suitable occasions to present the information to new readers. The new book by Dick Cheney and his adoring daughter is just such an occasion.

“We are, as a matter of empirical fact and undeniable history, the greatest force for good the world has ever known. … security and freedom for millions of people around the globe have depended on America’s military, economic, political, and diplomatic might.” – Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, “Why the world needs a powerful America”

Well … nothing short of a brain and soul transplant would change the welt anschauung of Dr. Strangelove and his carefully-conditioned offspring, but for all of you out there who still live in a world of facts, logic, human rights, and human empathy, here’s the ammunition to use if you should happen to find yourself ensnared in the embrace of the likes of the Cheney reptiles (including mother Lynne who once set up a website solely to attack me and seven others for holding a teach-in on September 18, 2001 in which we spoke of US foreign policy as the main provocation of what had happened exactly a week earlier.)

These are the lists:

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

  • Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
  • Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
  • Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
  • Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
  • Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
  • Plus … although not easily quantified … more involved in the practice of torture than any other country in the world … for over a century … not just performing the actual torture, but teaching it, providing the manuals, and furnishing the equipment.

Open Letter to the War Politicians of the World

Jürgen Todenhöfer is a German journalist and former media manager; from 1972 to 1990 he was a member of parliament for the Christian Democrats (CDU). He was one of Germany’s most ardent supporters of the US-sponsored Mujahideen and their guerrilla war against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Several times he traveled to combat zones with Afghan Mujahideen groups. After 2001 Todenhöfer became an outspoken critic of the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has published several books about visits he made to war zones. In recent years he twice interviewed Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and in 2015 he was the first German journalist to visit the ‘Islamic State’.

Dear Presidents and Heads of Governments!

Through decades of a policy of war and exploitation you have pushed millions people in the Middle East and Africa into misery. Because of your policies refugees have to flee all over the world. One out every three refugees in Germany comes from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. From Africa comes one out of five refugees.

Your wars are also the cause of global terrorism. Instead of some 100 international terrorists like 15 years ago, we now are faced with more than 100,000 terrorists. Your cynical ruthlessness now strikes back at us like a boomerang.

As usual, you do not even consider to really change your policy. You care only about the symptoms. The security situation gets more dangerous and chaotic by the day. More and more wars, waves of terror and refugee crises will determine the future of our planet.

Even in Europe, the war will one day knock again at Europe’s door. Any businessman that would act like you would be fired or be in prison by now. You are total failures.

The peoples of the Middle East and Africa, whose countries you have destroyed and plundered and the people of Europe, who now accommodate the countless desperate refugees, have to pay a high price for your policies. But you wash your hands of responsibility. You should stand trial in front of the International Criminal Court. And each of your political followers should actually take care of at least 100 refugee families.

Basically, the people of the world should rise up and resist you as the warmongers and exploiters you are. As once Gandhi did it – in nonviolence, in ‘civil disobedience’. We should create new movements and parties. Movements for justice and humanity. Make wars in other countries just as punishable as murder and manslaughter in one’s own country. And you who are responsible for war and exploitation, you should go to hell forever. It is enough! Get lost! The world would be much nicer without you.

– Jürgen Todenhöfer

 

Notes

  1. The Independent (London), March 18, 2015
  2. The Wikileaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015), Introduction by Julian Assange, chapter 10
  3. Newsweek, September 21, 2015
  4. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2005), Chapter 18
  5. See Jürgen Todenhöfer’s Facebook and website. Some minor corrections to spelling and grammar have been made.
  6. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba (1991), p.885

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission, provided attribution to William Blum as author and a link to this website are given.

There are no “moderate rebels” in Syria

Jamil Saleh, "moderate rebel"

Jamil Saleh, “moderate rebel”

There are no “moderate rebels” in Syria and there never were.

The entire concept of “moderate rebels” has been put forth by mainstream media propagandists such as Susan Rice, Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the New York Times, John McCain, Anne Barnard, Helene Cooper, Michael R. Gordon, and the mass media in general.

At best, the above propagandists put the number of the “moderate rebels” at 3,000 to 5,000—including the five or six rebels officially backed by the U.S. to the tune of half a billion dollars.

One of the groups of “moderate rebels” hit by the Russians is led by Jamil Saleh who said his group had been hit by the Russians in Hama Province, wounding eight of his men. This was “confirmed” by American officials.

Jamil Saleh said, “We are on the front lines with Bashar Al-Assad’s army, “We are moderate Syrian rebels and have no affiliation with ISIS. ISIS is at least 100 kilometers away from where we are.” True, perhaps, but Jamil Saleh’s “moderate rebels” are in the immediate area as the al Qaeda group al-Nusra?

So how can anyone say who is being bombed by Russia—al Nusra or Jamil Saleh’s small group or both?

Strangely, the worst characterization of the “moderate rebels,” comes from President Obama. In an interview with Thomas Friedman over a year ago, Obama stated, “It’s always been a fantasy, this idea that we could provide some light arms, or even more sophisticated arms, to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, and so forth, and that that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state, but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah. That was never in the cards.”
Why Obama is keeping silent now is anybody’s guess.

Actually, Obama contradicted himself as his administration the Utopian view of the “moderate rebels” is favored by his staff—Susan Rice, Samantha Power and Vice President Joe Biden.

The confusion in Washington is due to a lack of knowledge, not only of the Middle East, but also of history.

Concepts such as “balance of power” and “sphere of influence” are unknown or ignored by Washington. Toppling Saddam and Gadhafi removed their part in resisting revolution or invasion.

Toppling Saddam and Gadhafi brought about the birth of ISIS. Not only ISIS but now both Russia and Iran have rushed in to fill the power vacuum in Iraq and Syria. Obama’s unintended consequence of unseating Syria’s Assad would be but a third step to the disasters following the removal of Saddam and Gadhafi.

The dreamers in Washington, including McCain and Petraeus will have to face that they have given away America’s influence (and allies) in the Middle East to Russia.

Note: The author, John Harding has lived and worked in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for over nine years.

October 9, 2015 Update:

It would appear that the Obama officials in Washington have read my post, as they have now decided to abandon the “moderate rebels.”

WASHINGTON, OCT. 9, 2015 — After failing totally to identify groups in Syria that it can confidently support, the Obama administration has abandoned its effort to build a rebel force inside Syria to combat the ISIS. It acknowledged the failure of its $500 million campaign to train thousands of fighters.

Unfortunately, the C.I.A. has for some time been covertly training and arming “moderate rebels” presumably fighting Mr. Assad.

“We need to be flexible. We need to be adaptive,” said Brett McGurk, a top adviser to Mr. Obama on the fight against ISIS. This is even though McGurk, a legal advisor, has little or no knowledge of the Middle East.

Pentagon officials announced what they called a face-saving “operational pause” in the training program on Oct. 9th.

October 12, 2015 Update:

Going back on its word of no longer supporting “moderate rebels,” U.S. forces airdropped small arms ammunition and other supplies to Syrian Arab rebels.

Only last week, Washington shelved a program to train and equip “moderate rebels” opposed to Assad who would join the fight against ISIS.

The U.S. military confirmed dropping supplies to opposition fighters vetted by the United States but would say no more about the groups that received the supplies or the type of equipment in the airdrop as it is known that the U.S. is arming Sunnis, any Sunnis, to topple Shia Bashir al Assad.

Russian’s intervention in the four-year-old Syrian war has wrong-footed U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, which has been trying to defeat ISIS while still defeating their enemy – Assad in a strangely triangulated war where friends and enemies unite to fight enemies and friends. Yes, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was rebuffed in his bid to gain support for his country’s bombing campaign, with Saudi sources saying they had warned the Kremlin leader of dangerous consequences and Europe issuing its strongest criticism yet.

Putin met Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Russia on Sunday.

A Saudi source said the defense minister, a son of the Saudi king, had told Putin that Russia’s intervention would escalate the war and inspire militants from around the world to go there to fight. Russia and many others suspect that Saudi Arabia has been and is the main backer of ISIS from day one. Both Saudi Arabia and ISIS are united in that both profess the Wahabi brand of Islam.

Moscow says it targets only banned terrorist groups in Syria, primarily ISIS. In its briefings, it describes all of the targets it strikes as belonging to ISIS.

October 25 2915 Update:

The United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase support to Syria’s moderate opposition while seeking a political resolution of the four-year conflict, the U.S. State Department said after Secretary of State John Kerry met King Salman on Saturday.

“They pledged to continue and intensify support to the moderate Syrian opposition while the political track is being pursued,” the State Department statement said after Kerry’s meetings in Saudi Arabia. It did not spell out what kind of support would be offered—or named the rebel groups current receiving support from the CIA. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have named the “good” rebels as being the Free Syrian Army headed in part by terrorist, Jamil Saleh.

Saudi Arabia, the founder of ISIS and whose citizens attacked the U.S. on 9/11, so far has offered no support to back the mistaken U.S.-backed “moderate rebels” in Syria and Iraq.

Russia would be ready to help Western-backed Free Syrian Army rebels, if it knew where they were. Just who is the “Free Syrian Army” and where are they?

Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has come out and apologized for his part in the Iraq War. He has admitted in a TV interview the conflict caused the rise of ISIS. We have Blair and Bush to thank for the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and Hillary Clinton for the rise of ISIS in Libya. Apparently, Blair received $19 billion for his cooperation, but we do not know how much the Clinton’s received for the destruction of Libya. We do know that several oil companies, hoped, in vain, that they would be the beneficiaries of the removal of Ghaddafi. With Hillary Clinton’s email server under her control and not that of the State Department, she attempted to cover up all her deals in turn for favors from the State Department.