President Obama

ISIS: State Sponsored Terror Group

Posted on

opinyon-opinion
By Erick San Juan

Many people in the world especially the Islamic nations were astounded as to where this terrorist group ISIS came from? Just like the Al Qaeda, ISIS( Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) started as freedom fighters and metamorphosed into super warriors more mightier than the Al Qaeda and the Taliban combined. Most of its components according to reports are not even born in the Middle East but Arab-Americans, Muslim-Europeans, British, Australians and according to former President Fidel Ramos, more than a hundred Filipino Muslim jihadists who are members of the BIFF and the Abu Sayyaf’s went to Syria to join and be trained by ISIS.

James Dorsey of the Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore Aug.14,2014 wrote that US President Barack Obama’s decision to launch air strikes against Islamic State jihadists in Iraq is fraught with pitfalls and could persuade IS to consolidate its position in Syria, in the knowledge that Obama is likely to salvage the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Kevin Barrett, editor of Veterans Today, August 12, 2014 believed that Israel is either committing suicide or insane. He cited former US Senate Counsel Jeff Gates, author of Guilt by Association saying that Zionist actions, no matter how crazy they look, are the product of elaborate strategic calculations. He wrote that the Zionists are master of game theory- a psychopathic technique for following utterly amoral mathematical self-interest in pursuing ones objectives.

Barrett argued that if Gates is right, the Zionists must be taking desperate measures because they are in a desperate situation. They are facing a demographic challenge, the Palestinians resistance in getting better at asymmetrical warfare and global public opinion is gradually and inexorably turning against them.
Michael Singh, the managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior director for the Middle East Affairs of the US National Security Council, in his article at the International New York Times, 8/20/14, said that President Obama surprised many recently when he diagnosed the crisis gripping Iraq as partly an economic one, noting that the Iraqi Sunnis were detached from the global economy and thus frustrated in achieving their aspirations.

Singh disclosed that while Iraq’s chaos has many sources, Obama is nevertheless ‘on to something’ and it’s not just Iraqi Sunnis, but the entire Middle East that is detached from the global economy. The economies of the Middle East are not only detached from the world’s but from one another. Economies and politics are inextricably linked. And economic progress is the key to easing the chronic instability that threatens American interests in the region.
As I’ve been saying in the past that politics begins and ends in economics, Singh was partly right in his assessment. But he has not answered fully his query as to why Obama made a surprise order to attack the ISIS in Iraq.

According to James Dorsey of RSIS,”With tens of thousands of Yasidis trapped by the Jihadists on a mountain in Northern Iraq under dire circumstances and the security of the Iraqi Kurdistan, with Iraq’s most stable region under threat, Obama had little choice but to take action. Growing Saudi-fueled sectarianism in the Middle East is likely to backfire on the US effort as many Sunnis will perceive the air strikes as an expression of a pro-Shiite policy. Sunnis believe that the US policy had brought Shiites to power in Iraq with the toppling of Sunni strongman, Saddam Hussein.”
(During the Babylonian festivities in the past hosted by Saddam, I found out that the hexagram symbol now being used by Israel in their flag was the former emblem of the Yasidis.)

Pundits believe that the air strike launched by Obama was well calculated, the way the American elite kicked out several of their ‘Frankenstein’ worldwide including Marcos, Saddam, Hosni Mubarak, recently Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iraq’s former Prime Minister al Maliki.

According to Mohamed Bin Ali of RSIS (June 30, 2014) the plan was to create levels of conflict. “First is a sectarian one between Sunnis and the Shiite regime. The second level is ideologically motivated attacks. The third is the humanitarian level where there’s a humanitarian crisis to justify intervention. Many are radicalized by what they see and who they come into contact within.

Syria as an example is undergoing a political conflict that serves as the newest hotspot attracting scores of foreign fighters like ISIS, ISIL, etc.”

Sounds familiar! The pattern is getting clearer. That was how the Al Qaeda was created by Osama bin Laden, another state-sponsored terrorist who was sacrificed after winning his war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Even the popular geopolitical analyst, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research (June 14, 2014) commented that there is an ongoing engineered destruction and political fragmentation of Iraq towards the creation of a US sponsored Islamist Caliphate. He explained that the Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as ‘intelligence assets’ since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and the ISIS rebels are the foot soldiers of the western military alliance which oversee and control the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces using different names and acronyms.

Chossudovsky concluded that the plan was to support both sides. The war on terror created the Al Qaeda terrorist entities as part of an intelligence operation, as well as rescuing governments which are the target of terrorist insurgency. This process is reportedly carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the pretext to intervene.

ISIS is allegedly a ‘Caliphate project’ of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is neither a project of the Sunni population of Iraq. It is a part of a US intelligence agenda. The Islamic Caliphate is allegedly supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Turkish intelligence. He confirmed that Israel also channeled support to Al Qaeda rebels in Syria as well as to the Kurdish separatists.

“The endgame is to destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open territories on behalf of the so called foreign investors.” Chossudovsky stated.

A Filipino Islamic scholar told me the other day that Muslims worldwide are watching carefully the possible scenario of how the Zionists will take over the Golden mosque in Jerusalem and the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. They are also monitoring the ISIS no ‘mercy strategy’ in killing Muslims and the possible pretext in destroying the ‘Dome of the Rock’, the ‘perceived hindrance’ in building the Zionists third temple. He added that the Muslim world will fight back including Arab states allied to Israel. His nightmare is the possible intervention of the western allies. He’s getting feedback from the US that the Zionist Americans controlling the US government wanted to help the Israelis in getting the Arab lands to fast-track the creation of a Greater Israel.

The scholar foresees that the beheading of the American freelance journalist James Foley could be the justification for the US government all out intervention to assist Israel in the road to Armageddon.

God forbid!

This entry was posted in articles and tagged , , , , , , .

Paper Tiger!

Posted on

Nothing much can be expected from US President Barack Obama in his April 28-29 official visit in Manila.While he is likely to reassure the Philippines of Americans’ commitment to defend the Philippines in its raging territorial dispute with China, it will not make a difference, given how the US has been badly treating its Asia-Pacific ally over the past decades.

Since both countries forged their so-called Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) in 1951, the US hardly cared about the poor state of the Philippines’ military capability.

Calls by Manila for increase in American military aid usually fell on deaf ears among policy makers in Washington. Whatever the Americans gave were nothing more than second-hand hardware – either of World War II vintage or their leftovers in the Vietnam war era.

Now that the geo-political situation has vastly changed, it’s time for both strategic allies to redraw their treaty or risk overtaken by new and bold challenges.

From what was once dubbed the “sleeping giant,” China has suddenly awaken, emerging as the biggest threat to the Philippines’ security interests as both have interlocking claims to the oil-rich Spratlys islands.

With superior naval assets patrolling the disputed chain of islands, China has bullied the Philippines, long perceived as militarily weak.

In the face of China’s aggressiveness in asserting its sovereign claims to the Sprawls, also referred to  as the west Philippine sea, Manila in not a few times wanted to invoke the MDT which many politicians label as a mere  paper tiger.

But thanks to cooler heads, the MDT remains as a last resort mechanism to avoid what’s likely to be a bigger problem – war.

Hopefully, Obama will use his two-day visit to assess the Philippines’ defense needs, especially in light that the two countries will enter into a new security alliance under the banner of the so-called enhanced defense security agreement.

An offshoot of months of hard bargaining, Filipino negotiators were hard put as they had to reckon with the Constitutional ban on the presence of foreign bases on Philippine soil.

In the end, they had to compromise as Manila agreed to allow US forces the use of Philippines-builtmilitary installations.

For both countries, it’s a win-win situation as they usher in a paradigm shift in their strategic ties, given China’s surging aggression in the hotly contested Spratlys.For the US, Manila’s nod to a new pact gives the Americans the leeway needed as they reposition their defense forces from theMiddle East to Asia.

Under Barack’s pivot policy, the Philippines plays a crucial role because of its strategic location in keeping peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

But more than the much-needed military materiel, the Philippines badly requires America’s political succor as its row with China has assumed complex dimensions.Neither has China eased up in its flexing its military muscle in the high seas nor has it showed signs of flexibility in its diplomatic rapport with the Philippines.

As the world’s policeman, the US is in the best position to cool the tensions between Manila and Beijing for the sake of regional peace and stability.

This entry was posted in diplomacy, diplomatic, economy, filipino, filipino-american, foreign, foreign relations, government, Information, International, pnoy, politics, world news and tagged , , , , , .

Editorial : Not So Perfect Alibi?

Posted on

DIFFERENT speculations  came out as to why US President Barack Obama did not attend the important summits together with his Asian tour particularly in the ASEAN nations. Some pundits believe that the so-called partial US government shutdown was not the real reason.  And the situation became more suspicious when even US Secretary of State John Kerry also cancelled his visit to the Philippines ‘due to bad weather’ (kuno). The mere fact that this visit of President Obama and Sec. Kerry to the region, is very crucial to US pivot to Asia, particularly to its allies, one will wonder—did the sudden change of travel plans of both Obama and Kerry have something to do with China? Is the Chinese pressure so strong that such important plans had to be cancelled?

 

Photo credit: http://www.washingtonpost.com. Used under Creative Commons)
Photo credit: http://www.washingtonpost.com. Used under Creative Commons)

Just asking because both alibis seemed quite shallow.As what Manong Ernie Maceda said in his column in the Philippine Star last week– the cancellation of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Manila because of storm Santi shows the low priority that the Philippines has with US officials. Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) was open. No flights were cancelled. The storm was coming in from Catanduanes, while the flight path from Brunei is through Mindanao.

Kerry’s visit was supposed to substitute for President Obama’s state visit. It should have gone through at all costs. Yes, at all costs, that is why the excuse he gave was not valid at all.We also have to consider the statement of President BS Aquino at the APEC about the Philippines-US Framework Agreement on Increased Rotational Presence. PNoy said the United States should be clear with the words they use concerning the said agreement.

“During negotiations, we always get entangled with all the semantics. Those words that are actually used to convey the thoughts.”He said that the words to be used in the agreement on increased rotational presence should “satisfy both parties needs and wants; and satisfy all or addresses all concerns and anxieties.”“Their language is geared to support the request for budget when they go to Congress,” the President pointed out. “Their language might be perfect in an American manner of speaking English but might be construed differently through a Filipino.” (Source: Aquino presses careful crafting of US rotational presence deal by Roy Mabasa mb.com 10.9.13)

If PNoy felt this urgency to discuss this executive agreement that entails another pact that will make the country beholden to a perceived master in the offing, it is very clear that our relationship with Uncle Sam is one way. So Manong Ernie is right, we are being given low priority by these US officials.

This is the sad reality I have been saying for so many times now, these so-called agreements and treaties we entered into with Uncle Sam are always for the benefit of their country than ours and in the process we are always shortchanged. When are we going to learn to assert our rights as a sovereign nation?

This is not a simple matter that we can just to ignore and let Washington craft the agreement to their own liking. This is about national security, and most of all, our sovereignty (what was left of it) is at stake here.

In the four rounds of talks that transpired regarding the access agreement, there are “gaps” in the “critical provisions” that need “more work,” according to Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino, who heads the Philippine panel.
The military-to-military agreement is expected to boost the defense capability of the AFP amid growing territorial threats, increase the training of its troops, and improve disaster response.

Batino said they have narrowed down the framework agreement to 5 key provisions namely: scope, agreed installations/AFP Facilities, prepositioning of defense equipment, supplies, and materiel, ownership and security. (Source: Bases access: PH, US disagree on ‘critical provisions’ by Carmela Fonbuena, rappler.com)Now that the chance for our President and other government officials to tackle the crucial decisions covering the new access agreement was postponed (until who knows when), methinks that this pact is already a done deal on Washington’s side for their Congress to release the budget, and will left us (again) to just accept it with open legs, as usual. So, what else is new?And don’t forget  (as Reuters reported last October 3), also on the cards is the development of Oyster Bay, which lies about 550 km (340 miles) southwest of Manila.”It will be a mini-Subic,” Commodore Joseph Rostum O. Peña, the commander  of the Philippines’ western navy, said in the first public comments about converting Oyster Bay into a major naval base.

“A future port here would extend the reach of the navy’s two frigates, both former U.S. Coast Guard cutters, over the disputed Spratly Islands, in the southern part of the South China Sea.” he said in an interview from his office overlooking the mouth of the bay.

Oyster Bay is about 160 km (100 miles) from the Spratlys.

“In Manila, the leaders must move behind rhetorical blandishments about a new spirit of partnership and start to detail specific actions that will strengthen Philippine defense capabilities,” said Patrick Cronin, an Asia-Pacific security expert at the Center for a New American Security in Washington DC.

That includes building a permanent home for the Philippines’ two big warships. It also means finding strategic areas where the United States could rotate troops, ships and naval aircraft — all within easy reach of territory claimed by Beijing. Oyster Bay may be the best choice,” said Cronin.

After reading this, the access agreement is already a done deal, to hell with the other critical provisions that we wanted to further discuss with Washington.

Need we say more?

Related articles

This entry was posted in ASEAN, editorial, filipino-american, foreign relations, government, opinion, opinyon, philippines, society, world events and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .