Why Polls are wrong on Clinton lead

Here is the Quinnipiac latest Poll.

First it does not show sample size.

2nd it is an ANTI Trump Poll.

Notice the NEGATIVE questions they ask:
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?

9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?

10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?

Please notice that there is not ONE question involving Clinton Emails, Lies, Clinton foundation illegal donations or Bills infidelities.

This poll also relied on HEAVY Democrat states.

This is the RIGGING of the election.

 

CLINTON TOPS TRUMP BY 7 POINTS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS;
MOST VOTERS SAY MEDIA IS BIASED AGAINST TRUMP
Republican Donald Trump’s lead among men and white voters all but vanishes as Democrat
Hillary Clinton takes a 47 – 40 percent likely voter lead, with 7 percent for Libertarian Party
candidate Gary Johnson and 1 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, according to a
Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
This compares to a 45 – 40 percent Clinton lead in an October 7 survey by the
independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
Today, men are divided with 43 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton. Women
back Clinton 52 – 37 percent.
White voters go 45 percent for Trump and 41 percent for Clinton, while non-white voters
back Clinton 63 – 25 percent.
In a head-to-head, two-way race, Clinton tops Trump 50 – 44 percent.
The news media is biased against Trump, American likely voters say 55 – 42 percent,
including Republicans 88 – 8 percent and independent voters 61 – 37 percent. Democrats say
77 – 20 percent that the media is not biased.
American likely voters believe 51 – 31 percent that Trump assaulted several women.
Democrats believe it 84 – 5 percent and independent voters believe it 45 – 34 percent.
Republicans don’t believe it 56 – 22 percent.
“Donald Trump made the charge, and American likely voters agree: There IS a media
bias against the GOP contender,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac
University Poll.
“But does that explain his lackluster standing with his core base?”
-moreTim
Malloy, Assistant Director
(203) 645-8043
Rubenstein
Pat Smith (212) 843-8026
2
Quinnipiac University Poll/October 19, 2016 – page 2
Trump does not have a sense of decency, American likely voters say 59 – 36 percent and
he is not fit to be president, voters say 58 – 38 percent.
Clinton does have a sense of decency, voters say 55 – 42 percent, but they are divided on
whether she is fit to be president, as 47 percent say yes and 49 percent say no.
“Media bias or not, Trump’s character issues have ominous implications,” Malloy said.
“The consensus opinion is that Trump groped women and is neither fit enough nor a decent
enough person to be President.”
From October 17 – 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,007 likely voters
nationwide with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call
landlines and cell phones.
The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts
public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida,
Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and the nation as a public
service and for research.
Visit http://www.qu.edu/polling or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll
Call (203) 582-5201, or follow us on Twitter @QuinnipiacPoll.
3
1. If the presidential election were being held today, and the candidates were
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats, Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans,
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld the Libertarians, and Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka the Green
party candidates, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more
toward Clinton and Kaine, Trump and Pence, Johnson and Weld, or Stein and Baraka?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 47% 7% 91% 38% 41% 52% 46% 35%
Trump and Pence 40 80 4 42 43 37 42 49
Johnson and Weld 7 6 3 11 10 4 7 9
Stein and Baraka 1 2 1 2 1 2 – 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 5 4 2 6 5 4 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 57% 47% 43% 46% 36% 45% 41% 63%
Trump and Pence 20 35 48 47 49 42 45 25
Johnson and Weld 19 8 4 1 10 6 8 4
Stein and Baraka 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – – – 1 1 –
DK/NA 1 6 4 5 3 5 4 5
2. If the only candidates were Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine the Democrats and
Donald Trump and Mike Pence the Republicans, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As
of today, do you lean more toward Clinton and Kaine or Trump and Pence?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Clinton and Kaine 50% 10% 93% 41% 44% 55% 49% 39%
Trump and Pence 44 86 4 49 48 40 46 55
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 1 1 – 1 – 1 1 –
DK/NA 6 4 3 8 8 4 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Clinton and Kaine 63% 51% 45% 46% 40% 48% 44% 65%
Trump and Pence 32 39 50 49 55 46 50 28
SMONE ELSE(VOL) – 1 1 – 1 1 1 –
DK/NA 4 8 4 5 5 5 5 7
*Results based on total sample, only asked of respondents who did not choose Clinton or
Trump Q1. Respondents who named Clinton or Trump in Q1 assigned to initial preference.
4
3. Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of
motivation to vote in this year’s presidential election; are you more motivated than
usual, less motivated, or about the same as usual?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
More 53% 56% 52% 54% 50% 55% 54% 52%
Less 17 21 14 17 19 15 13 20
About the same 29 22 34 29 30 28 33 27
DK/NA 1 1 – 1 – 1 – 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
More 46% 48% 55% 58% 51% 55% 53% 52%
Less 28 23 11 13 17 15 16 18
About the same 26 30 33 27 32 28 30 30
DK/NA – – 1 2 – 2 1 –
4. Would you say that Hillary Clinton is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 47% 11% 86% 41% 43% 51% 51% 36%
No 49 86 11 56 54 45 48 59
DK/NA 4 2 3 3 3 5 1 4
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 52% 50% 44% 47% 41% 47% 44% 56%
No 45 47 52 49 58 49 53 37
DK/NA 2 4 4 4 1 4 3 6
5. Would you say that Donald Trump is fit to be President of the United States or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 38% 71% 4% 42% 43% 33% 40% 46%
No 58 27 93 52 53 62 58 49
DK/NA 4 3 2 6 4 5 3 5
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 33% 44% 41% 50% 36% 43% 24%
No 74 64 50 53 48 58 54 70
DK/NA 2 3 5 6 2 6 4 6
5
6. Would you say that Hillary Clinton has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 55% 21% 92% 47% 49% 59% 52% 48%
No 42 75 7 50 48 37 46 49
DK/NA 3 5 1 2 3 3 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 73% 53% 48% 53% 45% 55% 50% 67%
No 25 44 48 44 52 43 47 28
DK/NA 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
7. Would you say that Donald Trump has a sense of decency or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 36% 64% 7% 40% 45% 28% 35% 43%
No 59 31 90 54 51 66 61 51
DK/NA 5 4 3 6 4 6 4 6
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 24% 31% 41% 41% 47% 31% 39% 28%
No 76 65 52 55 48 64 56 66
DK/NA – 4 7 4 4 5 5 6
8. As you may know, there is a recently released tape in which Donald Trump brags about
sexually assaulting women. Trump has since apologized and said that these comments were
simply “locker room talk”. In deciding your vote for president, is what Trump said in
that video a deal breaker, a big deal but not a deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 27% 5% 48% 24% 21% 31% 29% 21%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 36 34 36 36 34 34 33
Not a big deal 35 59 11 38 41 29 33 43
DK/NA 4 1 7 2 2 5 4 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 34% 29% 24% 23% 20% 30% 25% 31%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 47 36 32 30 34 32 33 37
Not a big deal 19 33 38 42 44 32 38 27
DK/NA 1 2 6 5 1 5 3 5
6
9. As you may know, multiple women have recently said that Donald Trump groped or made
inappropriate sexual advances towards them without their consent. Trump has denied these
allegations, calling them lies. Do you believe that Donald Trump committed these actions,
or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes 51% 22% 84% 45% 44% 56% 50% 45%
No 31 56 5 34 37 26 31 37
DK/NA 19 22 11 21 19 18 19 18
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes 64% 55% 44% 50% 42% 53% 48% 61%
No 20 28 37 31 40 29 34 22
DK/NA 16 17 19 19 18 19 18 17
10. In deciding your vote for president, are the allegations that Donald Trump groped or
made inappropriate sexual advances towards women a deal breaker, a big deal but not a
deal breaker, or not a big deal?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Deal breaker 28% 8% 52% 22% 22% 34% 30% 23%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 34 32 34 39 35 34 34 33
Not a big deal 33 59 10 33 39 28 33 42
DK/NA 4 1 4 6 4 4 3 3
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Deal breaker 46% 32% 22% 21% 20% 33% 26% 35%
Big deal/Nt deal br. 35 32 36 35 34 33 33 37
Not a big deal 15 32 38 40 43 32 37 23
DK/NA 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5
11. Do you think that the news media is biased against Donald Trump or not?
LIKELY VOTERS……………………………………
WHITE……
COLLEGE DEG
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No
Yes/Biased 55% 88% 20% 61% 61% 49% 51% 66%
No/Not biased 42 8 77 37 36 47 45 32
DK/NA 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 2
AGE IN YRS………….. WHITE…..
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Men Wom Wht NonWht
Yes/Biased 60% 51% 56% 52% 66% 51% 58% 45%
No/Not biased 39 48 39 45 32 45 39 51
DK/NA 2 1 5 3 1 4 3 5

Click to access us10192016_U29frgv.pdf

Proof Aliens visited earth a long time ago?

A piece of aluminium that looks as if it was handmade is being hailed as 250,000-year-old proof that aliens once visited Earth.

Metallic aluminium was not really produced by mankind until around 200 years ago, so the discovery of the large chunk that could be up to 250,000 years old is being held as a sensational find.

The details of the discovery were never made public at the time because it was pulled out of the earth in communist Romania in 1973.

Builders working on the shores of the Mures River not far from the central Romanian town of Aiud found three objects 10 metres (33 feet) under the ground.

They appeared to be unusual and very old, and archaeologists were bought in who immediately identified two of them as being fossils.

The third looked to be a piece of man-made metal, although very light, and it was suspected that it might be the end of an axe.

All three were sent together with the others for further analysis to Cluj, the main city of the Romanian region of Transylvania.

Ancient object

it was quickly determined that the two large bones belonged to a large extinct mammal that died 10,000-80,000 years ago, but experts were stunned to find out that the third object was a piece of very lightweight metal, and appeared to have been manufactured.

According to tests, the object is made of 12 metals, 90% aluminium, and it was dated by Romanian officials as being 250,000 years old. The initial results were later confirmed by a lab in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Other experts who conducted later tests said the dates were far alter, ranging between 400 and 80,000 years old, but even at 400 years old it would still be 200 years earlier than when aluminium was first produced.

The object is 20 centimetres (7.8 inches) long, 12.5 centimetres (4.9 inches) wide and 7 centimetres (2.8 inches) thick.

What puzzled experts is that the piece of metal has concavities that make it look as if it was manufactured as part of a more complex mechanical system.

Now a heated debate is going on that the object is actually part of a UFO and proof of visitation by an alien civilisation in the past.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/experts-believe-mysterious-aluminium-object-9086060

Previously Secret report shows Obama and Clinton aided in forming ISIS

The truth is coming out why we were in Benghazi. The question is WHO in the media will report the truth?

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” To Overthrow Syria’s President Assad

Tyler Durden's picture

From the first sudden, and quite dramatic, appearance of the fanatical Islamic group known as ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world’s terrorist bogeyman, we suggested that the “straight to beheading YouTube clip” purpose behind the Saudi Arabia-funded Islamic State was a simple one: use the Jihadists as the vehicle of choice to achieve a political goal: depose of Syria’s president Assad, who for years has stood in the way of a critical Qatari natural gas pipeline, one which could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant – and belligerent – source of energy, reaching an interim climax with the unsuccessful Mediterranean Sea military build up of 2013, which nearly resulted in quasi-world war.

The narrative and the plotline were so transparent, even Russia saw right through them. Recall from September of last year:

If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, LiveLeak reports that the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Clearly comprehending that Obama’s new strategy against ISIS in Syria is all about pushing the Qatar pipeline through (as was the impetus behind the 2013 intervention push), Russia is pushing back noting that the it is using ISIS as a pretext for bombing Syrian government forces and warning that “such a development would lead to a huge escalation of conflict in the Middle East and North Africa.”

But it’s one thing to speculate; it’s something entirely different to have hard proof.

And while speculation was rife that just like the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, there was no actual evidence of just this.

That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the “leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime.” 

And not just that: as we reported last week, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people’s heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to “modernize” and “replenish” the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq.

But that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now. What wasn’t clear is just how the US predetermined the current course of events in the middle east.

Now, thanks to the following declassified report, we have a far better understanding of not only how current events in the middle east came to be, but what America’s puppermaster role leading up to it all, was. 

From Nafeez Ahmed: Secret Pentagon report reveals West saw ISIS as strategic asset Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to ‘isolate’ Assad, rollback ‘Shia expansion’, originally posted in Medium.

Hypocrisy

 

The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.

Among the batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a federal lawsuit, released earlier this week, is a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document then classified as “secret,” dated 12th August 2012.

The DIA provides military intelligence in support of planners, policymakers and operations for the US Department of Defense and intelligence community.

So far, media reporting has focused on the evidence that the Obama administration knew of arms supplies from a Libyan terrorist stronghold to rebels in Syria.

Some outlets have reported the US intelligence community’s internal prediction of the rise of ISIS. Yet none have accurately acknowledged the disturbing details exposing how the West knowingly fostered a sectarian, al-Qaeda-driven rebellion in Syria.

Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer, said:

“Given the political leanings of the organisation that obtained these documents, it’s unsurprising that the main emphasis given to them thus far has been an attempt to embarrass Hilary Clinton regarding what was known about the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012. However, the documents also contain far less publicized revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.”

The West’s Islamists

The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.

Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”

The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”

The formerly secret Pentagon report notes that the “rise of the insurgency in Syria” has increasingly taken a “sectarian direction,” attracting diverse support from Sunni “religious and tribal powers” across the region.

In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”

The document also recommends the creation of “safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command centre for the temporary government.”

In Libya, anti-Gaddafi rebels, most of whom were al-Qaeda affiliated militias, were protected by NATO ‘safe havens’ (aka ‘no fly zones’).

‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity

In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.”

Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.”

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.

The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, it says, would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.” Last summer, ISIS conquered Mosul in Iraq, and just this month has also taken control of Ramadi.

Such a quasi-state entity will provide:

“… a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of territory.”

The 2012 DIA document is an Intelligence Information Report (IIR), not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, but its contents are vetted before distribution. The report was circulated throughout the US intelligence community, including to the State Department, Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, among other agencies.

In response to my questions about the strategy, the British government simply denied the Pentagon report’s startling revelations of deliberate Western sponsorship of violent extremists in Syria. A British Foreign Office spokesperson said:

“AQ and ISIL are proscribed terrorist organisations. The UK opposes all forms of terrorism. AQ, ISIL, and their affiliates pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. We are part of a military and political coalition to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and are working with international partners to counter the threat from AQ and other terrorist groups in that region. In Syria we have always supported those moderate opposition groups who oppose the tyranny of Assad and the brutality of the extremists.”

The DIA did not respond to request for comment.

Strategic asset for regime-change

Security analyst Shoebridge, however, who has tracked Western support for Islamist terrorists in Syria since the beginning of the war, pointed out that the secret Pentagon intelligence report exposes fatal contradictions at the heart of official pronunciations:

“Throughout the early years of the Syria crisis, the US and UK governments, and almost universally the West’s mainstream media, promoted Syria’s rebels as moderate, liberal, secular, democratic, and therefore deserving of the West’s support. Given that these documents wholly undermine this assessment, it’s significant that the West’s media has now, despite their immense significance, almost entirely ignored them.”

According to Brad Hoff, a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:

“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”

Hoff, who is managing editor of Levant Report — ?an online publication run by Texas-based educators who have direct experience of the Middle East?—?points out that the DIA document “matter-of-factly” states that the rise of such an extremist Salafist political entity in the region offers a “tool for regime change in Syria.”

The DIA intelligence report shows, he said, that the rise of ISIS only became possible in the context of the Syrian insurgency?—?“there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits.” The report demonstrates that:

“The establishment of a ‘Salafist Principality’ in Eastern Syria is ‘exactly’ what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as ‘the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey’) in order to weaken the Assad government.”

The rise of a Salafist quasi-state entity that might expand into Iraq, and fracture that country, was therefore clearly foreseen by US intelligence as likely?—?but nevertheless strategically useful?—?blowback from the West’s commitment to “isolating Syria.”

Complicity

Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.

The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.

However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.

Despite that, the Pentagon continued to support the Islamist insurgency, even while anticipating the probability that doing so would establish an extremist Salafi stronghold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shoebridge told me, “The documents show that not only did the US government at the latest by August 2012 know the true extremist nature and likely outcome of Syria’s rebellion”?—?namely, the emergence of ISIS?—?“but that this was considered an advantage for US foreign policy. This also suggests a decision to spend years in an effort to deliberately mislead the West’s public, via a compliant media, into believing that Syria’s rebellion was overwhelmingly ‘moderate.’”

Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda to assassinate Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, similarly said of the revelations:

“This is no surprise to me. Within individual countries there are always multiple intelligence agencies with competing agendas.”

She explained that MI6’s Libya operation in 1996, which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, “happened at precisely the time when MI5 was setting up a new section to investigate al-Qaeda.”

This strategy was repeated on a grand scale in the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, said Machon, where the CIA and MI6 were:

“… supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulting in a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.”

Divide and rule

Several US government officials have conceded that their closest allies in the anti-ISIS coalition were funding violent extremist Islamist groups that became integral to ISIS.

US Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, admitted last year that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey had funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamist rebels in Syria that metamorphosed into ISIS.

But he did not admit what this internal Pentagon document demonstrates?—?that the entire covert strategy was sanctioned and supervised by the US, Britain, France, Israel and other Western powers.

The strategy appears to fit a policy scenario identified by a recent US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report.

The report, published four years before the DIA document, called for the US “to capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The US would need to contain “Iranian power and influence” in the Gulf by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.” Simultaneously, the US must maintain “a strong strategic relationship with the Iraqi Shiite government” despite its Iran alliance.

The RAND report confirmed that the “divide and rule” strategy was already being deployed “to create divisions in the jihadist camp. Today in Iraq such a strategy is being used at the tactical level.”

The report observed that the US was forming “temporary alliances” with al-Qaeda affiliated “nationalist insurgent groups” that have fought the US for four years in the form of “weapons and cash.” Although these nationalists “have cooperated with al-Qaeda against US forces,” they are now being supported to exploit “the common threat that al-Qaeda now poses to both parties.”

The 2012 DIA document, however, further shows that while sponsoring purportedly former al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq to counter al-Qaeda, Western governments were simultaneously arming al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria.

The revelation from an internal US intelligence document that the very US-led coalition supposedly fighting ‘Islamic State’ today, knowingly created ISIS in the first place, raises troubling questions about recent government efforts to justify the expansion of state anti-terror powers.

In the wake of the rise of ISIS, intrusive new measures to combat extremism including mass surveillance, the Orwellian ‘prevent duty’ and even plans to enable government censorship of broadcasters, are being pursued on both sides of the Atlantic, much of which disproportionately targets activists, journalists and ethnic minorities, especially Muslims.

Yet the new Pentagon report reveals that, contrary to Western government claims, the primary cause of the threat comes from their own deeply misguided policies of secretly sponsoring Islamist terrorism for dubious geopolitical purposes.


Dr Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author and international security scholar. A former Guardian writer, he writes the ‘System Shift’ column for VICE’s Motherboard, and is also a columnist for Middle East Eye. He is the winner of a 2015 Project Censored Award, known as the ‘Alternative Pulitzer Prize’, for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his Guardian work, and was selected in the Evening Standard’s ‘Power 1,000’ most globally influential Londoners.

Nafeez has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, New Internationalist, Counterpunch, Truthout, among others. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010), and the scifi thriller novel ZERO POINT, among other books. His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest.

What has Obama done or Why Ferguson went down as it did……

To understand President Obama and his actions we need to start with where he came from. He called himself a community organizer but what if he is a community agitator? What if he thinks that the Government can lift Blacks out of poverty by causing a social revolution as in socialism?

When Obama came into office there were “welfare to work” programs established by President Clinton. For some unexplained reason Obama signed these out of existence.  Now these programs were actually working.

Obama had ran on a platform of helping the blacks, making things equal. He told them that they were “entitled” to things.

Then he was elected and gave out welfare checks, disabilities and free “Obama Phones”.

The poor Black communities thought that they hit the gold mine. The Government spigot was turned on and they were filling their proverbial pot ‘o Gold. But they wanted more. Soon the news was full of stories of flash mobs, where mobs of black youth invaded stores and took whatever they wanted. Stealing everything.
Now Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wanted their pot of Gold so they waited on an opportunity to take advantage of.

They got it one evening in Florida when Treyvon Martin met a community patrol officer named Zimmermann.

Even though the shooting was deemed legal it was presented to the world by Jesse, Al and Barrack, as a white on black hate crime, when in essence it was a case of an over zealous guard and a aggressive entitled youth who had been taught that all things can be resolved through violence. Even when black on white murder was increasing sharply and black on black crime in Chicago skyrocketed, the media and government focused on the isolated white on black crimes.

How is this related to Ferguson? Michael Brown had watched and listened to the propaganda floated by Obama, Jackson and Sharpton. He felt entitled, that everything was his for the taking and if anyone resisted violence was acceptable. Why not? The flash mobs were never punished, everything else in his life came for free. He was entitled.
So when he and his buddy went to the local store he thought nothing of stealing some cigars. When confronted by the store owner who was just trying to make a living we saw Michael Brown on video using violence, force, threats and intimidation to get his way.

But the store owner believed in the system. He called to Police to report the theft. But the black community have been taught to not trust the police. So even if officer Wilson was correct is using deadly force to protect his life, the liberals in this country will blame him, because they have been taught by Obama that the blacks in the US have been discriminated against so they should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

So what did the community do? First they rioted and used it as an excuse to rob their local businesses.

Ferguson Burns

Then when the verdict was issued (correctly in my mind) they looted and then burned down their community. They got their free beer and tennis shoes, then set fire to the local businesses their community depended on. They even looted the market where Michel Brown started this destruction.

They have been programmed to act this way. They know they will not be prosecuted, they know Obama will send cash to rebuild. They know that Obama will keep them down on the plantation and voting for the Democrats.

After all they live in an Obama socialist community and everything will or should be free because they are entitled to it.

 

Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers

 

Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

BY:
September 24, 2014 1:40 pm

President Barack Obama favorably quoted and praised on Wednesday in his speech before the United Nations a controversial Muslim cleric whose organization has reportedly endorsed the terror group Hamas and supported a fatwa condoning the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.

However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.

This is not the first time that the Obama administration has extoled Bin Bayyah, who also has served as the vice president of a Muslim scholars group founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans,” according to Fox News and other reports.

The State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) was forced to issue multiple apologies earlier this year after the Washington Free Beacon reported on its promotion of Bin Bayyah on Twitter.

“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at the time after many expressed anger over the original endorsement of Bin Bayyah.

However, it appears that Obama and the White House are still supportive of Bin Bayyah, who, despite his past statements, is still hailed by some as a moderate alternative to ISIL and al Qaeda.

“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript of his remarks.

“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the controversial cleric.

Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, whenoutrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.

While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against Israel.

He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.

Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.

Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.

“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.

“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.

This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.

“This is a snapshot of why this administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete catastrophe,” he said. “The keystone of their policy has been that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to be the great counter to al Qaeda. But if you take less than 30 seconds to do a Google search on any of these ‘moderate Islamists,’ you immediately find they are just a degree or two from the most hardcore jihadis and have little to no difference when it comes to condoning violence.”

A White House official said that the president’s remarks speak for themselves and declined to add anything further.

Iran may already have NUKE delivery devices

Netanyahu: “Iran will next hide nuclear suitcases.” DEBKAfile: Bought 10 years ago from Ukraine
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 10, 2014, 8:00 PM (IST)
Nuclear-capable X-55 missiles sold by Ukraine to Iran ten yeas ago

Nuclear-capable X-55 missiles sold by Ukraine to Iran ten yeas ago

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned Monday, March 10, that because the world chooses to slide over Iran’s concealed nuclear program, the next Klos C ship may not carry missiles but “nuclear suitcases.” They would not only reach an Israeli port, he said, but any port in the world.
He spoke at Israel’s naval base in Eilat at the presentation of the 60 missiles, 181 mortar shells and hundreds of bullets unloaded from the Klos C that was apprehended by Israeli commandos on the Red Sea opposite Sudan last week. Present too were defense minister Moshe Ya’alan, chief of staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz and top generals.
Netanyahu did not elaborate on his reference to nuclear suitcases.DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources link it to a shipment of 6-10 “nuclear suitcases” that were part of an illegal  Ukraine delivery to Iran in 2003 or 2004 of half a dozen nuclear-capable X-55 cruise missiles (NATO codenamed AS-15) whose 2000-km range covers every part of Israel.
These nuclear suitcases were believed at the time by Western and Middle East intelligence sources to be an original development of Russian nuclear agencies.
In 2005, Ukraine president Viktor Yushchenko confirmed the sale of the X-55 missiles to Iran and China – by his predecessor. But never referred to the nuclear suitcases; nor were they confirmed by Russia or the US.

Nuclear suitcases were designed as a mobile weapon of mass destruction for the easy transfer of tactical nuclear weapons or dirty bombs from place to place. It was therefore perfect for terrorists.

As for the missiles, Israel intelligence estimated that they were sold to Iran without nuclear warheads but with attached diagrams and specifications,  so providing the technology whichr jumped Iran forward in its quest for a nuclear weapon.
The nuclear suitcases, too, were apparently sold without nuclear explosives.

All this means that Iran secretly possessed nuclear-capable, long-range missiles almost a decade ago.

The illicit Ukrainian transaction, hinted at by the prime minister, had additional murky and serpentine features. It is presumed that China which bought the same number of missiles as Iran footed the bill for both. To disguise the sale, Ukraine and Iran cooked the sales and shipping documents to show that the end-users of the weapons were Russian.
The forging of documents is clearly a common Iranian trick of concealment up to the present day.  Along with the inventory of weapons unloaded from the Klos C, Israel displayed Monday fake Iranian shipping manifests designed to conceal the ship’s route from Bandar Abbas in Iran to Port Sudan en route for Sinai and the Gaza Strip.

The Prime minister implicitly rebuked EU Foreign Police Executive Catherine Ashton for failing to raise the Iranian weapons ship in her talks in Tehran Monday, when he said, “There is a shrill chorus of international condemnation when we build a balcony in Jerusalem, but scarcely a word when Iran tries to smuggle missiles into Gaza.”
IDF officers at the Eilat presentation pointed to four types of M-302 missiles shipped from Iran with ranges of 90, 120, 140 and 160 km, which could cover the distance from the Gaza Strip to Haifa. Invited to the presentation were also foreign diplomats and correspondents, although few of the latter attended.

 

Benghazi was a planned tragedy

LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy

The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls

  •  

By James A. Lyons

 

Monday, March 3, 2014

  • Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.

Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.

The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.

There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.

On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.

On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.

Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.

On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.

The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.

At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.

The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.

The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?

According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?

On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.

This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?

Based on numerous reports, the Obama administration and every organization in the chain of command knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack on the SMC.

Within hours, it was known that the attack was executed by Ansar al Shariah, which is a coalition of Islamic and Salafist rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.

It should not be overlooked that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was tasked with supporting the U.K.-based Blue Mountain Security Group that had the contract from our State Department to provide security for the compound.

According to my source, who is a confidential informant for the FBI, the Blue Mountain Security Group is a cover company for MI-6. My source also told me that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade contract personnel were positioned near the compound the day of the attack and were ready to respond but never received orders to execute. Interesting.

My FBI confidential informant has also confirmed my assessment on the Lou Dobbs TV show in October 2012; namely, that this was an operation that went terribly wrong.

According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.

All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, appoint such a committee as called for by Resolution 36 put forth by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and restore integrity to the office of the speaker.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/3/lyons-benghazi-was-a-planned-tragedy/#ixzz2v2igxdZl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Vanity and the Bonfires of the “isms” a 1993 Prophecy by US Army Research

Vanity and the Bonfires of the “isms”
RALPH PETERS
© 1993 Ralph Peters
From Parameters, Autumn 1993, pp. 39-50.
Not long ago, with communism coughing up its diseased lungs,
radical Islamic fundamentalism seemed the obvious candidate to
provide the West with a galvanizing threat. While politically
correct intellectuals were initially a bit disoriented by the notion
that indigenous forces in the stagnant areas of the world might be
less than virtuous, the repeated brutalities of fundamentalists
from Iran to Lebanon so bloodied the fairy tales about the
psychology of underdevelopment that it became acceptable to
oppose–circumspectly–the “excesses” of fundamentalism. God’s
men in Teheran slaughtered Bahais and communists with equal
fervor, savagely repressed all political dissent, shackled the
media, tossed their countrywomen back into the Dark Ages, and
refused to compromise on anything ever. Fundamentalists
deepened the ineffably stupid Lebanese civil war, rolled back
social progress in Pakistan, and nearly ousted the “progressive”
government of Algeria. They blew up airliners and killed tourists.
They poked pocketknives into charred American corpses and
took hostages. Then they danced in the streets, fired their rifles
into the air, and yelled at us. Not only were they unashamed, they
seemed to be having an astonishingly good time. We had found
our new bad guys.
Then came Yugoslavia. Nagorno-Karabakh. Moldova. Ossetia.
Abkhazia. An epidemic of virulent xenophobia erupted, from the
Baltic states down through the Balkans: a black new beginning,
not the end of something. The ending was the death of neo-
Leninist hegemony and the Soviet empire. What we see now is
the brave new world.
Even within the fortress of the Russian Federation, tiny peoples
whose homelands Western experts cannot pinpoint on a map
demand independence from Moscow. Reason as a political force
plays no role. Ethnic groups of 100,000 or so–little more than
extended families–cry out for their own governments and flags.
Nationalism, against which our century’s great wars had
supposedly inoculated us, has come back with a power over the
human soul simply not comprehensible to the educated US
citizen (although, even within the United States, a nativist fringe
in Hawaii calls for secession).
Fundamentalism, which to Americans, after all, is primarily a
bother to foreigners, has fallen to second place on the roll of
threats to Western well-being. The horrendous images and
reports from Yugoslavia–so recently the exemplary darling of
intellectuals (and where the people look a bit more like us)–
drove home the revised lesson: the real number one threat of the
future is nationalism, and nationalism is now the domain where
academics and government analysts can make careers. . . .
As always, we are reacting to the crisis–or crises–of the
moment. We never thought the fundamentalist problem through.
Conditioned sociopolitical inhibitions may make it even more
difficult to understand what nationalism is about, since it not only
thumbs its nose at an incredibly wide range of cherished
disciplines, from sociology to political science, but also discredits
virtually every cola commercial produced in the last 30 years.
We are not going to teach the world to sing by handing it a sweet
little bottle of tolerance. The world is too busy shrieking. And
those indigenous peoples who were supposed to teach us
humanity, the nobility of poverty, and how to be one with nature
are having a grand time killing their neighbors, mass raping the
women from the next village, blasting and burning out the homes
and history of anyone born on the other side of the ridge or
across the river, and threatening to explode dams, chemical
plants, and nuclear reactors.
Is nationalism, then, the critical factor with which we must cope?
Or does fundamentalism remain the ultimately greater menace,
despite the transitory, if bloody, dynamics at play in the Red
wreckage?
Must we now prepare to fight a two-front ideology-inspired war?
The answer is no. On technical grounds:
Nationalism and fundamentalism are not separate problems. They
are essentially identical. If their rhetoric differs, their causal
impulses do not. Their psychological appeal to the masses is
identical. Nationalism is simply secular fundamentalism. To the
extent they differ at all, religious fundamentalism may even
become the preferable disease from the US standpoint. In any
case, these are twin enemies. And we are going to have to
struggle with them, on many fields, for a very long time to come.
How could all of those people in the intriguing folk costumes let
us down like this? We planned our vacations to admire them, we
made charitable contributions to give them a helping hand, we
praised them lavishly when they took their first baby steps
toward the sort of behavior we valued. They were such charming
waiters, and it was fun to go shopping in the bazaar. To prove our
earnestness, we helped them study in our universities and even
let them open restaurants in our cities where we could drink
terrible wine and reminisce about our holidays. Materially
speaking, they were making progress.
We’ve been through all this, of course. We are conversant with
the idea of “perceived relative deprivation,” the observation that
societies slip into crisis when expectations exceed the
possibilities of fulfillment, no matter the objective measure of
progress. But even this basically sound insight understates the
sheer vanity of humankind.
Every major religion warns its adherents of the danger of vanity,
decrying the sin of pride or insisting that only humility can lead
to enlightenment. In our rush from religion–be that flight good or
bad–we have certainly lost this fundamental insight. Everyone
everywhere wants more, usually in the most vulgar material
sense, because the display of possessions seems to verify the
worth of the self–“I have, therefore I am.”” We announce
ourselves to our peers through the possession of the mutually
desired object. And while European intellectuals, caught in a
pathetic timewarp, rail against American materialism, the
importance of “signifying” possessions is far greater in
economically stagnant or developing states. In Moscow, homegrown
entrepreneurs in top-of-the-line Mercedes speed by the
newly impoverished. For an Iranian, possession of a foreignmade
VCR is a far greater mark of distinction than possession of
a locally printed Koran. Within the United States, the most baldly
materialistic social sector is composed of young males from the
inner cities, with their ritual gold chain jewelry and their
willingness to risk prison if not their lives to acquire an
expensive car or at least an ornate pair of athletic shoes. These
young people fit a classic Third World rejectionist model–they
know what they want and believe they deserve, but they are
impatient with the legitimate means for acquiring it.
This cult of sheer material possession as a substitute for practical
accomplishment is one of the most severe childhood diseases of
civilization–it stunted the growth of Islamic culture just as it has,
more recently, incalculably retarded the development of
functioning economies in sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser
extent, in Latin America. Any culture or subculture where
possession has been disassociated from positive contributory
accomplishment degenerates into social cannibalism. This is as
true of the US welfare class as it was of the proprietary culture of
the Spanish Empire in America or as it is of the oil-rich lands of
the Persian Gulf. Much of the world has simply disassociated the
concept of “having” from that of “earning,” while the recognition
of the need to earn–either God’s Grace or an improvement in the
individual’s material lot–was a motive force in the rise of the
West.
The collision with foreign modernity has brought most non-
Western cultures the worst of both worlds: they retain the vanity
impulse, even experience it in an intoxicatingly aggravated form,
while imagining they can skip entirely the difficult process that
has legitimized the possession of “signifying” objects in Euro-
America. Our own good-hearted intellectual corruption
compounds the problem whenever we apologetically agree with a
failing nation or continent as it cries out that the West has no
right to the wealth it has earned. Too often, those of us most
sincerely concerned with foreign suffering simply reinforce
utterly groundless assumptions that aggravate the plight of the
object of pity. Europeans–and Japanese and other successful
Asians–did not always have computers in their homes and CATscan
equipment in every hospital. If anything, resource-deprived
Europe (and, again, Japan) had to come from behind in the race
for well-being. Now we are the adulated model (until
disillusionment sets in–see below), and the world’s failures, both
individuals and entire cultures, don’t much like it.
The emergence of enduring liberal democracies in a small corner
of the globe is probably the most complex cosmic accident of the
past millenium. Expecting violently different cultures to adopt
the finery of liberal democracy and wear it with panache is as
silly as expecting Malawi to compete with Silicon Valley or
Tokyo in the technological sphere. Rather than entering a new
golden age of liberal democracy, we may find that other cultures
are beginning to fall farther away from our standard, just as the
lower echelons of the Third World continue to fall farther behind
the West in both absolute and relative measures of modernity.
While hybrid democracies may function in Latin America
because they have been adapted to suit regional, popular, and
elite vanities, we may find that democracy’s high-water mark has
already been reached elsewhere: the echoes we hear mark its
melancholy retreat.
What are the common denominators of nationalism and
fundamentalism?
. Both are born of a sense of collective failure which frees the
individual from responsibility for personal failure. Nationalism
and fundamentalism both then transfer the blame for the
collective failure to another culture, religion, or ethnic group, or,
initially, to internal opponents. Thus, the individual has failed
only because his party was driven to failure by a malevolent
external force. Shouts of “Death to America,” or ethnic battle
cries in the Balkans, punctuate the efforts of broken men and
failed cultures to become whole again.
. There is always a sense of historical grievance. This may be
real, exaggerated, or imaginary. It does not necessarily involve
the contemporary opponent, but deepens and solemnizes the
sense of national or religious martyrdom.
. Both preach a lost golden age which can only be resurrected
when the nation is purged of corrupting foreign influences.
Interestingly, although fundamentalism reinforces this goldenage
myth with promises of a gorgeous hereafter, no significant
fundamentalist movement has omitted the vision of an earthly
paradise lost and to be regained.
. Both dehumanize their opponents and view mercy toward
enemies as an irresponsible show of weakness. The corollary to
this is that both preach the inherent superiority of their kind,
whether ethnic, religious, or a combination of the two.
. Both are dynamically violent. Nationalist and fundamentalist
leaders come to power on two-track platforms of rebirth and
revenge. They can excuse purges, severe economic sacrifice,
bloody battlefield stalemates, and even comprehensive failure–
but they cannot excuse inaction; their adherents want change,
even if it proves cataclysmic. One of the rare differences is that
fundamentalism can longer content itself with the persecution of
domestic enemies–heretics real and imagined–while nationalism
generally carries with it the spirochete of irredentism, of tribal
unification, of enosis.
. Both are aggravated by exposure to Euro-America. Not so long
ago, this exposure was limited to diplomats, adventurers of
miraculous variety, and the occasional thin red line drawn up at
the foot of a hill. Today, Euro-America–especially the United
States–is everywhere, thanks to the proliferation of media
technology. But far from serving the causes of education and
understanding, mass media have become the world’s single
greatest cause of cultural disorientation. We provide ill-chosen
information to people unprepared to process it and thus elicit
shock, revulsion, and jealousy, along with pathetic attempts at
emulation whose failure leads to embitterment.
We have yet to grasp the crisis of values that arises when an
insular, traditional culture is flooded by images of another culture
that is vastly more successful materially but whose values are
antithetical to those cherished by the receptor society.
Initially, the young and capable often imagine that by aping
externals they can transcend the differences and attain the level
of (various forms of) wealth, comfort, and convenience of the
external society. The two primary forms of this imitation of the
external model are domestic, in which the subject seeks to
“import” the lifestyle he desires; and emigre, in which the subject
travels to the promised land. The domestic approach may lead to
material well-being in lucky cases, but it fractures the society.
The emigre model can work for those willing to assimilate to the
necessary degree, who have a talent for mimicry, and who are
“doers.” But it also produces fundamentalist and nationalist
leaders through a process of multiple alienations. First, the
subject becomes alienated from his own “backward” society;
however, unable to satisfy his vanity in the adopted “progressive”
society, he undergoes a second alienation and concludes that the
superior virtues lay slumbering in the religion or ethnic culture he
abandoned. He assumes the mission of reshaping his roots to
meet a higher, exclusive standard, accenting differences, not
commonalities, with the foreign culture that betrayed him. He
runs home to an idealized mommy. Or, to use a more mature
metaphor, the psychology parallels that of a man who leaves his
wife for an intoxicating other woman, only to be ultimately
rebuffed. He feels betrayed and seeks revenge; meanwhile his
abandoned wife is idealized as the embodiment of virtue, whether
or not this corresponds to objective reality.
The greatest failures among Third World emigres are consistently
intellectuals and the children of established families (often one
and the same person) who do not find the automatic, unqualified
recognition in the object culture that they enjoyed at home. Even
if they attain professorships or manage to buy lives of great
mortal comfort, they tend to remain outsiders, also-rans. These
are the men who go home to start (often reactionary and always
xenophobic) revolutions that reject the foreign culture that
rejected them. Wounded vanity has motivated cross-cultural
problem children from Arminius, who recognized a Roman glass
ceiling when he struck it with his Germanic head, to Ho Chi
Minh, who had to work as a scullery knave in Paris; from
Clausewitz, who learned to hate sweet, dirty France during his
captivity as a prisoner of war, to a recent prime minister of
Greece, whose academic career in California proved ultimately
dissatisfying to the Balkan bully lurking under the tweeds.
It is impossible to satisfy the vanity of intellectuals, and the
collision of intellectuals from the failing regions of the world
with the ultimately exclusive cultural context of the West
profoundly aggravates their ever-wounded pride. And, thanks to
modern communication means, they don’t even have to leave the
farm to find out they’re hicks. That is why we are so often
shocked to find that bloody-minded nationalist leaders such as
Karadzic or Gamsakhurdia were respected intellectual and
cultural figures back home: poets, historians, doctors, professors.
So much of the progress imagined for the post-colonial era has
come to nothing. All that remains to failing nations and cultures
is the ceaseless assault of things foreign, dazzling, and
humiliatingly unattainable.
Western popular media are immeasurably more powerful in their
impact on the values of other cultures than on our own. Wailing
that television and hit music play havoc with the morals of our
youth, we become obsessed by the behavior of the marginalized
elements of our society, while most kids grow up as normally as
they ever did. Because our children receive the media in its
greater environmental context, most learn intuitively to filter
reality from fantasy to a workable degree. The impact about
which we genuinely should worry strikes foreign cultures that
have not acquired a discriminating mechanism from their social
context and therefore cannot adequately separate fact from
fiction. Gang movies may cause a temporary increase in
minority-on-minority violence outside theaters in US cities–since
segments of our urban youth also lack this discriminating
mechanism to some degree–but Arnold Schwarzenegger films do
not cause statistically significant eruptions of mass slaughter in
middle America. An American ten-year-old knows intuitively
that movies are an illusion. Many foreign adults do not. I have
personally met no end of would-be Rambos in Armenia and
Georgia, even in Moscow, and the grisly clowns driving the war
in what was Yugoslavia are enraptured by film images. Yet
Croatians, Serbs, Russians, Georgians, and Armenians have longstanding
ties to Western culture. Imagine the effect on those who
have no frame of reference whatsoever.
Last year I caught a rattling airliner from Yerevan to Moscow.
The aged Aeroflot jumbo wore a new Armenian flag on its tail,
and the cabin was crowded with travelers, many of them
refugees, sitting on broken-backed seats or huddling in the aisles.
It was almost impossible to move about, given the mounds of
shabby luggage which had been brought aboard, and the flight
attendants disappeared after takeoff, not to be seen again. All in
all, it seemed like a typical domestic flight over the corpse of the
USSR. And then they caught me off guard: they showed an inflight
movie, something unthinkable on the old Aeroflot domestic
runs.
This nod to competitiveness and world custom was a bit marred,
however, by the film chosen. It was a black-and-white, Englishlanguage,
ultra-cheap “dungeons and dragons” affair, with
unknown players and a startling mix of cold steel violence and
nudity–some of which involved imaginitive perversions.
Some of the travelers were well-connected and relatively
sophisticated; others were low-level entrepreneurs off to trade all
they could carry in Moscow markets. Many were refugees from
the sputtering, thug-fueled war in the mountains–refugees for
whom Yerevan had no more resources and who hoped to rescue
themselves with distant relatives or just a vague address in
Moscow. Some of these people had never been on an aircraft
before–and many of them certainly had not seen a film of this
sort. But, suddenly, there it was: The West.
The men–all of them–watched with passionate interest as huge
swords descended and packs of deformed creatures fondled a
demi-heroine’s naked breasts. Sometimes a phenomenally
muscled hero saved the girl in a rush of violence, sometimes not
(it was, all in all, a rather existential affair). Invariably, an
explicit coupling followed the bursts of violence.
The female passengers, Christian in religion but oriental in
conditioning, theatrically averted their eyes. Then they hungrily
scouted the more shocking bits from their trenches of decorum.
Personally, I found the movie repulsive and dumb. It was pitched
at the pimpled 12-year-olds whom R and X ratings were created
to attract. But even the Western 12-year-old would clearly
perceive this as fantasy. The film was, however, perfectly
tempered to inspire the absolute worst behavior in the sort of
credulous and infantile adult males who are presently
slaughtering each other in the Caucasus and elsewhere.
A final note on the unrecognized power of the entertainment
media: no contemporary fundamentalist movement, Islamic or
otherwise, has attacked the West on grounds of profound
religious difference (although they don’t mind massacring sects
they view as heretical). The complaints, from Western religious
zealots and Iranian theocrats, have consistently been directed
against secular influences (Mark Twain, women’s rights, and
other horrors). They do not attack religious beliefs but
encroaching cultural contexts. Neither nationalists nor
fundamentalists fear alternative beliefs, religious or secular. They
fear dissident behavior, since behavior (certainly not art) is the
ultimate manifestation of culture. And the most accessible–and,
therefore, insidious–examples of this frightening behavior are
provided by the entertainment media. In their appreciation of the
threat posed by the proliferation of audio and video technology,
the mullahs and reactionaries in the failing regions of the world
are far ahead of Western academics–with their quaint, pathetic
love of books (the recorded voice cassette is perhaps the most
effective propaganda tool employed by Islamic militants). The
“battle of behavior” has nothing to do with ideas. It has to do
with images: short skirts, not long theories. And with the
seductiveness of pop hits that will not leave the ear. The threat
doesn’t come from Harvard. It comes from Hollywood.
Perhaps the greatest fallacy (out of so many) in contemporary
Western diplomatic belief is the conviction that we can more
readily reason with and trust in nationalists than in
fundamentalists. In fact, the matter is purely situational, and it
may at times be preferable to lie down with the fundamentalist
cat (when we must) than the nationalist dog. We might, on a
good and lucky day, get up with fewer fleas.
The behavior of Islamic fundamentalists in power has generally
been deplorable. They torture without remorse, imprison or
execute without trial, and restrict basic freedoms to a degree
intolerable to Western man. Yet, after all of the gore has been
hosed into the sewer, there is a moral center to the greatest of the
fundamentalists. It just isn’t our moral center. Many
fundamentalist leaders, from Iran to Algeria, may not share our
taste for liberal democracy (which we acquired over the better
part of a millenium), but they do share many other ideals we
profess. The best of the fundamentalists are resolutely against the
corruption that has so ennervated the failing regions of the world.
They are for mass education (although we might not agree with
the curriculum and their exclusion of women). They desire to
democratize the nation’s wealth, if not its government. They seek
todo that which socialist demagogues only promised. They have
a sense of honor higher than that prevalent in the deathbed
societies they seek to revitalize. And their actions have yet to
prove anywhere near as belligerent toward other states as their
rhetoric.
Nationalists, on the other hand, tend to have a moral center
smaller and softer than the inside of a Tootsie Roll Pop. Hitler
was a nationalist. Mussolini was a nationalist. The military
leadership that steered Japan down the road to Hiroshima was
rabidly nationalist. Even Stalin, despite his Georgian antecedents,
became a Russian nationalist. Enver Pasha, the butcher of
Armenians, was a nationalist, and Mao ultimately proved more
nationalist than communist. Today, all the creepy little ex-party
bosses with Elvis haircuts who sponsor ethnic cleansing or the
suppression of minority rights from Dushanbe to the Danube are
nationalists–even when they profess otherwise for reasons of
expedience or intellectual confusion. Nationalists have not been
good to our century, and it does not appear that they will be much
kinder to the next.
Samuel Johnson, normally a precise fellow with his language,
misspoke himself on one fateful occasion, declaring “Patriotism
is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He meant to say “Nationalism
is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He just didn’t have the
vocabulary.
Despite the relative virtues of fundamentalism as currently
practiced and promised vis-à-vis nationalism, there is, in the end,
not much pleasure in the choice between them. By their essential
nature, both nationalism and fundamentalism stand firmly against
“us.” We are the necessary Satan, the galvanizing enemy.
If fundamentalism is sometimes marginally less repulsive than
nationalism, it is, unfortunately, less able and willing to
cooperate or compromise with the West. Fundamentalism is
utterly rejectionist, while nationalism is only partially so.
Nationalists are more mentally agile–and less scrupulous–and
can more easily digest sophisticated techniques and technologies
that promise them advantage. Nationalists are also far more
flexible when it comes to rationalizing alliances. Finally,
nationalists are quicker to welcome foreign assistance,
particularly if it is humiliating, threatening, or, best of all, lethal
to their neighbors.
But the problems in dealing with nationalists and
fundamentalists, whether fighting them or aiding them, are
virtually identical:
 If you enter an alliance with them, you must support them
without reservation, no matter how heinous their deeds.
The moment you introduce moral scruples concerning
treatment of the enemy or begin to speak of compromise
and just settlements, you have betrayed them and you will
become their enemy.
 Both will interpret any offer of a just peace from an enemy
as a sign of that enemy’s weakness.
 Neither fundamentalists nor nationalists will honor any
form of agreement a moment longer than it suits their
needs–unless they are afraid to abrogate it.
 Even when they admire your practical prowess, you are
despised as a lesser creature.
 Both are dogmatic and thus will behave even more
irrationally than other states.
 Both will inevitably commit atrocities that will embarrass
any Western state allied with them. In peacetime, they will
commit domestic atrocities; in wartime they will mistreat
enemy soldiers and the enemy population.
 In war, they will employ all available means to win, no
matter the degree of moral censure they receive, unless
they clearly understand that they will be punished for their
behavior by an external force so powerful that even the
most obstinate fundamentalist or nationalist ruler must
recognize his relative impotence. Even then, some of them
will ignore the danger of penalties.
 Not all nationalists or fundamentalists will fight to the last
man, but their behavior cannot be confidently predicted in
advance, and it will vary from culture to culture. Without
exception, the best way to make war against them is to
deliver an initial blow so comprehensive and powerful it
emasculates them militarily and psychologically. Even
then, the true believers among them may continue to resist.
 As stated above, nationalists and fundamentalists need
enemies. Although nationalists are more apt to carry
this Feindbild over into active aggression against another
state, the quickest way to start or expand a war of
aggression by nationalists or fundamentalists is to let them
imagine they have your unequivocal support, or that you
need theirs.
 No matter the extent of your support or the sincerity of
your commitment to nationalists or fundamentalists, it will
never be viewed as sufficient.
 You will always be suspect.
 Your interests don’t count.
Where nationalist and fundamentalist currents exist in the same
nation, they are (perhaps increasingly) symbiotic. Even
nationalists who harbor no personal religious beliefs find that
traditional religions lend credibility to the nationalist cause–as
well as expanding its power base. Conversely, fundamentalist
movements, such as the one in Iran, can broaden their acceptance
by couching harsh programs in terms of national necessity. This
symbiosis thrives in the ruins of Yugoslavia. Prior to the
outbreak of the wars of dissolution, religious differences in
Yugoslavia pretty much meant that the population failed to go to
the church of its choice. Bosnian Muslims were perhaps the least
religious of any major Muslim population. The Serbian Orthodox
Church slumped upon the shoulders of bent old women, and
Croatian Roman Catholics were perhaps more European in their
disregard of religion than in any other respect. Yet members of
each side in that guilt-rich conflict have attempted to wrap
themselves in the armor of a true faith, perceiving essentially
defunct religious professions as a perfectly good reason to
butcher and rape neighbors who resemble them genetically,
behaviorally, and materially.
To an extent, the rediscovery of traditional religion by ethnic
groups fired with the nationalist impulse is natural, since religion
is an important part of any people’s history. Religious
establishments, on the other hand, welcome growth opportunities
and official protection. Even in countries not ruptured by civil
war, populations and governments often have a difficult time
determining the proper relationship between religion and nation.
Poland is discovering that the Church Triumphant is not entirely
without imperfections, while governmental actors in Turkey are
assuredly playing with fire when they entertain Islamic
fundamentalists and endanger the unique legacy of Ataturk.
Saddam Hussein tried–with limited success, thanks to his sordid
past–to play the Islamic card during the Gulf War, while
nationalist leaders in India and Pakistan have long recognized the
power of appealing to religion whenever party energy threatens
to flag. It is impossible to separate religion from nationalism in
Israel, and the preservation of Islam’s sanctity is perceived by
some to be the only moral justification for Saudi statehood.
In an age haunted by cataclysms real and imagined, in this era of
disappointment and wracking international failure, men and
women will prove increasingly vulnerable to anti-modern, antirational
explanations for their misfortunes and their
inextinguishable impulse to vanity. Even in the United States,
many of those least able to keep material, intellectual, and
spiritual pace with the demands of modernity turn to primitive or
exotic religious forms, from revivalism to New Age God-candy.
In the failing regions of the world, such trends can only acquire
greater momentum. There are no irreversible physics in the
fundamentalism-to-nationalism equation: unsatisfying
nationalism can evolve “backward” into theocracy. To paraphrase
the most thoughtful soldier who ever learned to write,
“Nationalism is merely the continuation of fundamentalism by
other means.”
Our century has been one of fragmentation, of devolution that
flirts with chaos. Mankind has not experienced so universal a
breakdown in the established political order since the shattering
of the Roman Empire. Brotherhood-of-man platitudes have been
consigned to the “ashheap of history” with even greater certainty
than has Marxism-Leninism, but we, convinced of the allconquering
virtue of liberal democracy, still cannot accept the
essential realities of human political behavior. The world has
cancer, and we are in the denial phase. If you want to see the
future, look to Cambodia, to Somalia, to “Kurdistan,” or to
Yugoslavia, Angola, Tadjikistan, or Georgia.
We Americans must avoid fantastic schemes to rescue those for
whom we bear no responsibility, and we must resist imagining a
moral splendor for murderers who better understand media
manipulation than the murderers with whom they are in conflict.
We must learn not to trust our eyes and ears–and, especially,
their electronic extensions: the media, forever focusing on the
crisis of the moment, almost never understand what they witness.
In dealing with nationalism and fundamentalism, we must be
willing to let the flames burn themselves out whenever we are
not in danger of catching fire ourselves. If we want to avoid
needless, thankless deaths among our own countrymen, we must
try to learn to watch others die with equanimity.
We won’t learn this, of course. We will be moved to action
because of our emotional needs, heightened by the nonsense of
post-colonial guilt. We will send troops to places where they can
do no long-term good. We will be forced to choose which human
beasts to back. And we will always pay more than we expected to
pay when we began our intervention.
Major Ralph Peters is a member of Task Force Russia. He is a
foreign area officer specializing in the ruins of the Soviet empire.
Over the past four years alone, nearly 20 trips to Russia, newly
emerging states, and Eastern Europe have taken him to 14
countries. He has participated in Kremlin conferences and seen
the effects of civil war firsthand. He has repeatedly been the first
American to reach extreme or closed areas of the former USSR.
In addition to dozens of articles on a wide range of militaryrelated
topics, Major Peters has published four novels. His first,
published in 1981, predicted the resurgence of the German
extreme right. A later novel predicted the breakup of the Soviet
Union. In his latest novel, Flames of Heaven, he chronicles the
collapse of the Soviet Union as experienced by simple Russian
citizens.
Reviewed 28 May 1998. Please send comments or corrections
to usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@mail.mil.