By Mike King
Eight months have passed since the Allied powers of Britain & France had declared war against Germany for its justified invasion of Poland. The Allies have ignored Hitler’s numerous pleas for peace while amassing their armies in Northern France, close to France’s border with Belgium. Other than low-scale British and German maneuvers in Norway and Denmark, the great bloodbath known as World War II has not yet begun and can still be avoided.
The tiny states of Belgium and The Netherlands (both members of the Globalist League of Nations) claim to be “neutral”. In reality, under the pressure and influence of mighty England & France (also members of the League of Nations) the two mini-states have been assisting the Allies in their preparation for an attack upon Germany – which had quit the League of Nations in 1933. On May 10, 1940, Hitler orders the invasion of the Low Countries.
Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium were all members of the Globalist League of Nations. Germany took the fight to them in self-defense.
The hysterical headlines of the West’s major newspapers rush to condemn Germany’s aggression, and today’s history books portray the event as ultimate evidence that Hitler had been lying all along about not wanting to fight a war with the Western powers. Lost in the history books is the fact that Germany believed that it had no choice but to invade because Belgium and Holland were plotting with the Allies, while claiming to be neutral.
Even amidst its anti-German hysteria, The New York Times, in an effort to appear “objective”, did indeed publish “Germany’s side of the story”, in the form of statements issued by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. It is an account that you will neither find in contemporary history books, nor hear on a TV crockumentary.
During better times, Hitler (left) and von Ribbentrop (right) enjoy a good laugh.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to reject Germany’s claim as being a false propaganda pretext for war, a la ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, the question remains: why do the ‘court-historians’ continue to conceal such serious allegations from us? Why are we not given all of the data so that we can make up our own minds? What are they so afraid of? The truth?
In the belief that “there are two sides to every story”, we are posting abridged reproductions of the May 10 and May 11 Times articles containing the von Ribbentrop allegations. A few bits of highlighted analysis are also included.The full originals can be viewed by copy-paste-enlarging the article images.
As you can see, press accounts from New York’s two major Jewish-owned newspapers of May 10, 1940 were heavily slanted against the “Nazis”:
But a de-emphasized article from that same Times’ issue did present a different version of events — an ‘inconvenient’ version that has long since ‘disappeared’ from history.
Joachim von Ribbentrop
By George Axelsson, Wireless to the New York Times
***IMAGES & HIGH-LIGHTED COMMENTS ADDED***
BERLIN, Friday, May 10 – Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop at 9 o’clock this morning announced that Reich forces had launched military operations Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg to “protect their neutrality”.
Earlier it was reported that German troops had occupied Maastricht, the Netherlands, and had “landed” contingents in Brussels, probably meaning parachute troops.
Herr von Ribbentrop said that Germany had received unimpeachable proof that the Allies were engineering an imminent attack through the Lowlands into the German Ruhr district wherefore the Germans felt compelled to take corresponding measures. (In January 1923, France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr, a vital industrial area of German bordering their own countries. The region is full of factories and coalmines. After the German currency had collapsed, the French and Belgians stole the Ruhr’s resources in lieu of unpaid World War I reparations.)
He said the time had come for settling the final account with the “Franco-British leaders.”
“France and Britain dropped their mask.” said Herr von Ribbentrop. “The alarm in the Mediterranean was a feint behind which the Allies were preparing an onslaught on German territory which the Reich could not tolerate.”
The notes handed to The Hague and Brussels simultaneously with a shorter note to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg just prior to their invasion by Germany accused the Lowlands with having been overwhelmingly partial toward the Allies, adding that the attitude of the press was objectionable to the Reich.
A memorandum similar in tone to that handed to Denmark and Norway last month stated:
“In the life-and-death struggle thrust upon the German people, the government does not intend to await an attack by Britain and France inactively allowing the war to be carried through Belgium and Holland onto German soil. The government, therefore, has issued orders to safeguard the neutrality of the two countries with all the military means of the Reich.”……
Continued on Page Four
NAZIS SAY ALLIES PLANNED TO ATTACK
Continued from Page One
Holland Also Accused
The second point of the memorandum charges that Holland, in conjunction with certain Belgian circles, lent herself to support attempts by the British Secret Service to bring about a revolution in Germany. An organization allegedly was built up by the Secret Service on Belgian and Netherland soil enjoying the “fullest support” of the Netherland and Belgian authorities including members of the general staff. The “plot” was aimed at the removal of Chancellor Hitler and the setting up of a government in Germany ready to work for the destruction of the unity of the Reich and agreeable to the formation of a powerless federation of individual German States. (Just like today’s pathetic attempts at a ‘Color Revolution’ aimed at weakening Putin in Russia).
Copying the argument of the April 9 memorandum to Denmark and Norway, today’s documents says the government did not desire and did not bring about the development but that the responsibility rested entirely with France and Britain. (The Germans had been forced to occupy parts of Norway and Denmark in order to thwart the British from setting up anti-German operations in those countries. Google: Operation Wilfred and Plan R4.)
The next day, buried inside of the paper, the Times published von Ribbentrop’s full statement.
By the United Press
BERLIN, May 10 – Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop called foreign correspondents to offices this morning and read them a memorandum which explained the reasons why Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.lock this morning announced that Reich forces had launched military operations Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Von Ribbentrop Reads Paper
The German government has directed a memorandum to the Royal Belgian and Royal Netherlands governments in which the Reich government asserts that it is in possession of evidence and news which carries incontrovertible proof that an Anglo-French attack on Germany is immediately imminent and that this attack will take place against the Ruhr over Belgium and the Netherlands.
Images below added – French and Belgian troops invaded the industrial Ruhr in a 1923 shakedown operation. A new invasion of the Ruhr would be the most logical place to deliver a painful blow to German industry.
Therefore, the command has been given German troops to insure the neutrality of these countries with all the Reich’s military means of power.
The Reich government sets forth therein that it is reliably informed that England and France, in pursuit of their policy of extension of the war, decided in the near future to attack over Belgium and Holland. (Remember, it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany)
The German government has long been aware of the major British-French war policy. It consists of extension of the war to other lands and the misuse of their people as auxiliary mercenary troops of England and France.
The last attempt in this direction was the attempt to occupy Scandinavia with Norway’s assistance in order here to create a new front against Germany. Only though Germany’s intervention at the last moment was this intention nullified. Germany has produced documentary evidence, therefore, before the world public.
As the Reich government already has long known the true aim of England and France, prepared carefully for an impending attack against Germany in the West over Belgian and Netherlands territory to the Ruhr territory. Germany has recognized and respected the integrity of Belgium and the Netherlands and naturally has provided that these two countries shall preserve the strict neutrality in case of war between Germany and England.
Belgium and the Netherlands have not fulfilled this condition They have, indeed, sought so far to preserve the outward appearance of neutrality, but in reality both countries have completely and one-sidedly favored Germany’s enemy and have made clear their intentions.
… the measures of the Royal Belgian and Royal Netherlands Governments in the military sphere speak even clearer language and they give an irrefutable proof of the true intention of the Belgian and Netherlands policy.
The Netherlands coastal territory constituted an equally open and unsecured gate for British aircraft. The Reich government in repeated communications had drawn the Royal Netherlands Government’s attention to a violation of Netherlands’ neutrality by English planes. Since the outbreak of the war British fliers practically daily have been coming from the Netherlands and have appeared over German terrotory.
There were 127 cases of such flying over Holland by England which have been confirmed definitively and in all details, and the Rotal Netherlands Government has been notified of them. In reality, however, their number is much greater, amounting to many times, than cases in which the Netherlands has been notified. (Neither the Netherlands nor the ‘court-historians’ have ever denied that these pre-bombing surveillance flights were allowed to take place over “neutral” air-space.)
Sixthly, still crasser proof of the true Belgian and Netherlands attitude, however, is the deployment of mobilized Belgian and Netherlands troops, directed exclusively against Germany. While at the beginning of September, 1939, Belgium and the Netherlands divided their troops on their frontiers comparatively evenly – but paralleled to to intensified cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands General Staffs and England and France – sometime later on the western frontiers these countries were completely denuded of troops and the entire Belgian and Netherlands troops were concentrated on the eastern frontiers of both countries confronting Germany.
Seventhly, this massing of Belgian and Netherlands troops on the German frontier occurred at a time when Germany had concentrated no troops at all on its frontiers facing Belgium and the Netherlands and while England and France on the contrary had gathered strong motorized offensive armies on the Belgian-French frontier.
The Netherlands undertook their measures at a time when they were expressing their neutrality and while England and France were massing their troops.
Eighthly, documents in the possession of the German Government prove that the preparations made by Britain and France on Belgian and Netherlands territory for the attack on Germany had already reached an advanced stage. Thus, some considerable time ago all obstacles on the Franco-Belgian frontier which might have impeded the advance of the Anglo-French forces were secretly removed.
Designs on Ruhr Valley Alleged
Airdromes in Belgium and Holland were inspected by British and French officers and improvements duly carried out. Means of transport were stationed in readiness on the frontier by Belgium and recently advanced staff and troop units of the British and French armies arrived in various places in Belgium and Holland.
These facts as well as additional reports which have become more frequent in the last few days, are undeniable proof that the Anglo-French attack on Germany is imminent and that this attack on the Ruhr (valley) will take place through Belgium and Holland.
Calls Policy Deceptive
If, despite this, Belgium and the Netherlands still persist in making a pretense of policy of independence and neutrality, this cannot, in the light of these indubitable facts, be regarded as anything but an attempt at deception as to the real intention of Belgian and Netherlands policy.
In view of this state of affairs, the German government can no longer doubt that Belgium and the Netherlands have determined not only to tolerate the impending Anglo-French stroke, but to support it in every direction, and that the agreements reached between the general staffs of the two countries and those of Britain and France can only serve this purpose.
In the struggle for life and death thrust upon the German people by Britain and France the German Government does not intend to await an attack by France and allow the war to be carried through Belgium and Holland into German soil. (Would America allow enemy armies from Asia to amass near the Mexican border?)
German soldiers are not entering Holland and Belgium as enemies. (Indeed, many Dutch & Belgian men would later volunteer to fight alongside the Germans in the Waffen SS – photos below added)
The German Government further declares that Germany does not intend by these measures to attack the integrity of the Kingdom of Belgium and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands or their possessions, or their property in Europe, or in their colonies, either now or in the future. (German troops behaved impeccably during their 4-year stay in the Low Countries, even saving their artworks from Allied bombardment (so-called ‘Nazi looted art”). Ironically, it was the Globalists who would later strip Belgium and Holland of their colonial possessions.) The Belgian and Netherlands Governments today still have it in their power to safeguard the welfare of their peoples at the last moment by ensuring that no resistance will be offered to the German troops.
Later that same year, von Ribbentrop’s Foreign Office published a 50-page English version paper detailing its allegations.
Allied intrigue in the Low Countries further documents concerning the Anglo-French policy of extending the war.
Full text of White book no. 5, published by the German Foreign Office.
Corporate Author: Germany / Language: English / Published: New York, German Library of Information, 1940
THE MURDER OF VON RIBBENTROP
Soon after the rigged Nuremberg trials had ended, on October 16, 1946, Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged. When he was escorted up the steps of the gallows and asked if he had any final words, he said: “God protect Germany. God have mercy on my soul. My final wish is that Germany should recover her unity and that, for the sake of peace, there should be understanding between East and West. I wish peace to the world.”
Nuremberg Prison Commandant Burton C. Andrus later recalled that, immediately before the hood was placed over his head, Ribbentrop turned to the prison’s Lutheran chaplain and whispered, “I’ll see you again.” Members of the US Army cremated Ribbentrop’s remains and scattered them in an unmarked location.
A REAL holocaust (burnt offering)
The noble and capable statesman was hanged and then cremated.
By Catherine Shakdam, November 19, 2015
“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” – George Orwell
Our century so far has been overshadowed by a plague which roots, western powers have proclaimed, can be found in Islam and its practice. And though politicians have been careful not to publicly brand all Muslims terrorists, the narrative has nevertheless been one of suspicion and assumption. The words terror and Islam have been juxtaposed too many times in the media for anyone to believe that it was not by “design.” There has been a war of words against both Islam and Muslims. Its aim is rather simple and only too predictable since it falls within an equation of greed and cynicism.
By ridiculing Islam and dehumanizing its followers, western powers have essentially laid the ground for intervention – positioning their armies within a narrative of moral salvation and liberation when their aims are everything but.
Iraq serves a perfect example. Even though US soldiers committed heinous crimes against Iraqis, despite the rapes, the raids and the mass massacres; in the face of systematic tortures and aggravated human rights violations, Washington still claimed moral high ground, arguing the greater good required decisive actions.
Truth is, from the moment the towers of the Trade Center tumbled down to the ground in great swirls of smoke and ashes, the MENA and with it all Muslims within it, have been lined up as sacrificial lambs to the altar of imperialism.
If anyone and anything has benefited from this grand war on terror, it is surely weapons dealers and all those behind who feeds corporate America its fill of blood. The signs are everywhere for those who care to see!
And if speaking the truth is conspiratorial theorism then so be it!
Terror was engineered and unleashed as a weapon of mass destruction and a political trojan horse. What better way to control the narrative and outcome of wars but by creating the very crisis, one intends to find solutions to, while keeping a hand in both pots?
If not for 9/11 Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq would not have been invaded. Arguably, without the war on terror Americans would still enjoy some of their civil liberties, and terminologies such as rendition and institutionalized torture might not have become generic terms. But then again corporations would not have seen their bottom lines explode under the influx of billions of dollars in weapon sales, security deals, and oil concessions the way it did.
The terms “follow the money” takes on a completely different meaning when correlated to terror.
But if corporate America has indeed played the terror card to forward its own very selfish and radical form of capitalism, it did not invent the ideology of terror per se – it only rebranded and repackaged it to fit its purpose.
It is again in history we must look to understand how this evil – Wahhabism, came to be in the first place; and under whose influence it first sparked into life. There too, the shadow of imperialism lurks …
It is crucial to understand though that ISIS, terror’s modern manifestation and expression, carries no tie with Islam. NONE!
Actually both Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali warned us against this black plague.
In Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH – Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying,
“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty. They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”
In another reference to a period of intense religious, political and social confusion Imam Ali warned,
“If you are against a group of Muslims and the kuffar (unbelievers) are against them too, then know that you have aligned yourself with the kuffar against your own brothers. And know that if that is the case, then there is definitely something wrong with your view. If you want to know where the most righteous of Muslims are then look to where the arrows of the kuffar are pointing.”
In this extract, Imam Ali clearly refers to a time when Muslims will cross swords with other Muslims while in alliance with non-Muslims. And because western powers are undeniably colluding with those radicals they claim to want to destroy – training them and funding them in plain view, one can legitimately ponder.
Looking at events currently unfolding in the Middle East such warnings have found a deep echo within the Muslim community and religious leaders, among whom most prominently Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both have mapped their decisions within such religious parameters. And whether one agrees with those men or not is not the point – understanding where they are coming from and where they stand however, is.
And if we can agree that not all is as it seems, then could it not be that those enemies we have imagined are indeed – not?
If ISIS has certainly been sold as an Islamic movement, everything it professes and teaches stands against Islam and its teachings. This divide actually goes beyond Islam’s great schism – which schism it needs to be noted remains part of this myth Saudi Arabia has been so eager on selling the world.
If indeed religious disagreements have occurred over the centuries and if Muslims have in truth fought and argue over the legitimacy, legality and religious superiority of their schools of thoughts and judicial principles, scholars did so in the knowledge and express belief that while men are flawed, Islam is perfect.
Islam’s disagreements came about out from a desire to walk better on God’s path, not to obliterate people with an implacable and merciless truth.
Looking back at the long line of prophets, from Adam to Noah, Ibrahim, Jesus, Yehia and Muhammad, all shared in the Oneness which is God’s ultimate command, God’s boundless mercy onto His creation and His injunction of peace. And if those holy messengers came at different times and places in our history, the essence of their message has been as permanent and immovable as God’s will. From Adam’s first cries of remorse and calls for forgiveness, to Prophet Muhammad’s last breath, God’s message onto us has always been Islam – as Islam means submission. In truth, the only real freedom which was ever given to us is that to submit, body and soul to The Creator of All things.
Islam did not start at Prophet Muhammad, rather it was reborn with him and through him; a last call before the sunset, a last mercy and guidance for us to follow – or not – a last ray of hope before evil can get its fill and the last chapter of our fate written down.
Islam was on the first day as it will be on the last day – it is us which have called it many things in our need to possess and label the divine. It is us again which have strayed and plotted, coveted and perverted to serve very earthly ambitions.
Wahhabism is no more than an engineered perversion, a division, an abomination which has but spread like a cancer onto the Islamic world and now threatens to destroy all religions.
Wahhabism and its legions: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, are but the manifestations of a reactionary atheist movement which seeks the death of all faiths.
Wahhabism is not of Islam and Islam will never be of Wahhabism – it is a folly to conceive that Islam would ever sanction murder, looting and atrocious barbarism. Islam opposes despotism, injustice, infamy , deceits, greed, extremism, asceticism – everything which is not balanced and good, fair and merciful, kind and compassionate.
If anything, Wahhabism is the very negation of Islam. As many have called it before – Islam is not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is merely the misguided expression of one man’s political ambition – Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, a man who was recruited by Empire Britain to erode at the fabric of Islam and crack the unity of its ummah (community).
As Wahhabism began its land and mind grab in Hijaz – now known as Saudi Arabia – one family, Al Saud saw in this violent and reactionary school of thought a grand opportunity to claim and retain power. This unholy alliance has blotted the skies of Arabia for centuries, darkening the horizon with its miasms.
Wahhabism has now given birth to a monstrous abomination – extreme radicalism; a beast which has sprung and fed from Salafis and Wahhabis poison, fueled by the billions of Al Saud’s petrodollars; a weapon exploited by neo-imperialists to justify military interventions in those wealthiest corners of the world.
But though those powers which thought themselves cunning by weaving a network of fear around the world to better assert and enslave are losing control over their brain-child, ISIS and its sisters in hate and fury, as they all have gone nuclear, no longer bound by the chains their fathers shackled them with.
ISIS’s obscene savagery epitomises the violence which is inherent and central to Wahhabism and Salafism – its other deviance. And though the world knows now the source of all terror, no power has yet dared speak against it, instead the world has chosen to hate its designated victim – Islam.
In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. But then again the Grand Mufti might remain oblivious to the history of Wahhabism or what Wahhabism actually professes.
During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, governments were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given Muslims a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody is treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the ummah was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.
If 18th-century reformers were convinced that should Muslims ever regain lost power and prestige, they would have to return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order, Wahhabism would come to pervert such desires.
There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; not yet, rather, it was a grassroots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad.
Only, if the idea of going back to the root of Islam at a time when society had strayed from the path was indeed laudable, Wahhabism would work to betray such ideal by twisting on its head Islam’s most sacred pillars, perverting Islamic law and the interpretation of its Scriptures to serve the mighty and enslave the weak.
Under Wahhabism’s interpretation of Islam, women reverted to being objectified. Those many great women Islam saw rise under the strict protection of the Quran, those models Muslim women came to look up to and aspire to become – Maryam, Khadijah, Fatimah, Zaynab; Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab would have had locked up in chains in their home.
When Islam gave women their rightful place within society, Wahhabism denied them everything.
And for those of you who continue to live under the premise that Islam is profoundly unfair against women, do remember it is not Islam but rather men’s interpretations of it which is the source of your ire.
Islam secured women’ status according to God’s will. Islam poses both men and women on equal footing in terms of their faith – it is only in their duties and responsibilities which they differ, not worthiness. Islam calls on men to provide for women and offer them security, both financial and physical. Under Islam women are free to marry, divorce and work. Under Islam women cannot be bought, bartered or oppressed. Under Islam women enjoy more freedom than most western women have been given. It is society and cultural deviations which have denied them those rights, not Islam.
Women rights are forever imprinted in the Quran – this reality will never change, no matter how men chose to interpret it and falsify it.
Like Martin Luther, ibn Wahhab claimed he wanted to return to the earliest teachings of Islam and eject all later medieval accretions. To achieve such ambitions he opposed Sufism and Shia Islam, labelling them as heretical innovations (bidah) as both opposed tyranny in faith. He went on to urge all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (scholars) and interpret the texts for themselves, or rather under his guidance.
This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, ibn Wahhab found a patron in Mohammed Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. Ibn Saud quickly used Wahhabism to support his military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting such violence was all in the name of the greater good.
To this day Al Saud’s house is following in such bloody footsteps.
Although the scriptures were so central to ibn Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he distorted the Quranic message in the most violent way. The Quran firmly states that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” – Quran 2:256.
It rules that Muslims must believe in the revelations of all the great prophets (3:84) and that religious pluralism was God’s will (5:48). Until Wahhabism came knocking, Muslims remained traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir). Hitherto Sufism, which had developed an outstanding appreciation of other faith traditions, had been the most popular form of Islam and had played an important role in both social and religious life. “Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you disbelieve all the rest,” urged the great mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d.1240). “God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed.” It was common for a Sufi to claim that he was neither a Jew nor a Christian, nor even a Muslim, because once you glimpsed the divine, you left these man-made distinctions behind.
After ibn Wahhab’s death, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As Al Saud sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Hussain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children. A few years later, in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader, wary of that his army would do to the population.
Little do we remember the sacking of the holy city of Medina, when Al Saud’s legions ransacked mosques, schools and homes. Al Saud’s army murdered hundreds of men, women and children, deaf to their screams. As imams pleaded for the most sacred relics of Islam to be protected, Al Saud’s men pillaged and looted, setting fire to Medina’s library. Al Saud made an example out of Medina, the very city which proved so welcoming to Islam. On the ground which saw rise the first mosque of Islam, Al Saud soaked the earth red with blood.
Where the footsteps of the last Prophet of God still echo, Al Saud filled the air with ghastly cries of horrors.
But such terror has been erased from history books. Such tales of blood and savage betrayals have been swallowed whole by Al Saud as this house attempted to re-write history and claim lineage to the house of the prophet.
Eventually, in 1815, the Ottomans despatched Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, to crush the Wahhabi forces and destroy their capital. But Wahhabism became a political force once again during the First World War when the Saudi chieftain – another Abd al-Aziz – made a new push for statehood and began to carve out a large kingdom for himself in the Middle East with his devout Bedouin army, known as the Ikhwan, the “Brotherhood”.
In the Ikhwan we see the roots of ISIS. To break up the tribes and wean them from the nomadic life which was deemed incompatible with Islam, the Wahhabi clergy had settled the Bedouin in oases, where they learned farming and the crafts of sedentary life and were indoctrinated in Wahhabi Islam. Once they exchanged the time-honoured ghazu raid, which typically resulted in the plunder of livestock, for the Wahhabi-style jihad, these Bedouin fighters became more violent and extreme, covering their faces when they encountered Europeans and non-Saudi Arabs and fighting with lances and swords because they disdained weaponry not used by the Prophet. In the old ghazu raids, the Bedouin had always kept casualties to a minimum and did not attack non-combatants. Now the Ikhwan routinely massacred “apostate” unarmed villagers in their thousands, thought nothing of slaughtering women and children, and routinely slit the throats of all male captives.
In 1915, Abd Al-Aziz planned to conquer Hijaz (an area in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia that includes the cities of Mecca and Medina), the Persian Gulf to the east of Najd, and the land that is now Syria and Jordan in the north, but during the 1920s he tempered his ambitions in order to acquire diplomatic standing as a nation state with Britain and the United States. The Ikhwan, however, continued to raid the British protectorates of Iraq, Transjordan and Kuwait, insisting that no limits could be placed on jihad. Regarding all modernisation as bidah, the Ikhwan also attacked Abd al-Aziz for permitting telephones, cars, the telegraph, music and smoking – indeed, anything unknown in Muhammad’s time – until finally Abd Al-Aziz quashed their rebellion in 1930.
After the defeat of the Ikhwan, the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement.
But the Ikhwan spirit and its dream of territorial expansion did not die, instead it gained new ground in the 1970s, when the Kingdom became central to western foreign policy in the region. Washington welcomed the Saudis’ opposition to Nasserism (the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser) and to Soviet influence. After the Iranian Revolution, in 1979 it gave tacit support to the Saudis’ project of countering Shia Islam by Wahhabizing the entire Muslim world.
Just as Nasserism posed a threat to both the Saudis and the US in that it entailed independence and a supranational sense of belonging and solidarity, in opposition to colonialism and feudalism, Iran Shia democratic movement presented too much of a pull for countries in the region to follow to be allowed to shine forth.
And so the wheels of propaganda were set in motion and Iran became western powers and its allies’ designated enemy. Right alongside Soviet Russia, Iran became the source of all evil, while all the while Saudi Arabia was left to industrialize radicalism on a mass scale.
The soaring oil price created by the 1973 embargo – when Arab petroleum producers cut off supplies to the U.S. to protest against the Americans’ military support for Israel – gave the Kingdom all the petrodollars it needed to export its idiosyncratic form of Islam.
The old military jihad to spread the faith was now replaced by a cultural offensive. The Saudi-based Muslim World League opened offices in every region inhabited by Muslims, and the Saudi ministry of religion printed and distributed Wahhabi translations of the Quran, Wahhabi doctrinal texts and the writings of modern thinkers whom the Saudis found congenial, such as Sayyids Abul-A’la Maududi and Qutb, to Muslim communities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, the United States and Europe. In all these places, they funded the building of Saudi-style mosques with Wahhabi preachers and established madrasas that provided free education for the poor, with, of course, a Wahhabi curriculum.
Slowly Muslims’ understanding of Islam became polluted by Wahhabism and Sunni Muslims began to think and breath Wahhabism, no longer in tune with its own religious tradition, cut off from free-thinking Islam, moderate Islam, compassionate Islam and non-violent Islam.
At the same time, young men from the poorer Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who had felt compelled to find work in the Gulf to support their families, associated their relative affluence with Wahhabism and brought this faith back home with them, living in new neighbourhoods with Saudi mosques and shopping malls that segregated the sexes. The Saudis demanded religious conformity in return for their munificence, so Wahhabi rejection of all other forms of Islam as well as other faiths would reach as deeply into Bradford, England, and Buffalo, New York, as into Pakistan, Jordan or Syria: everywhere gravely undermining Islam’s traditional pluralism.
Don’t miss reading the second part: “ISIS: The brainchild of Wahhabism“
Information about television channel Al-Jazeera’s stringers allegedly filming a staged chemical attack by government forces against civilians in Syria was not confirmed.
On May 4, citing a military and diplomatic source, RIA Novosti news agency as well as other Russian media published an article alleging that Qatar-based television channel Al-Jazeera’s stringers filmed a staged attack in the settlements of Seraqeb, Erich and Jisr Shughur (Idlib province). According to the source, the filming was ordered from a European country.
After a rigorous check, this information was not confirmed by other sources. The agency cannot consider this information credible and tenders apologies to its readers and subscribers.
Its May 8, 2017 and the link doesn’t go to the original article anymore. Apparently they found out it did happen. It is a bit of a soap now. It did happen, then it didn’t, now it did.
Let’s have Ernie first
Source Confirms Info on Al-Jazeera Filming Staged Chemical Attack in Syria
On May 4, citing a military and diplomatic source, RIA Novosti news agency as well as other Russian media published an article alleging that Qatar-based television channel Al-Jazeera’s stringers filmed a staged attack in the settlements of Seraqeb, Erich and Jisr Shughur (Idlib province).
According to the source, the filming was ordered from a European country.
On Friday, May 5, this information about television channel Al-Jazeera’s stringers allegedly filming a staged chemical attack by government forces against civilians in Syria was not confirmed. Al-Jazeera TV channel has denied these allegations.
On Saturday, the Russian centre for reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria reported citing local residents and opposition representatives that special ‘video brigades’ made staged videos of the concequences of an alleged chemical attack in Syria.
“According to information from a number of sources among local residents and opposition formations … special ‘video brigades’ carried out staged filming in the past week of the alleged concequences of shelling and airstrikes, including the use of ‘poisonous substances’,” the reconciliation center said.
The center added that some of the “consultants” of the brigades were “recognized by the locals as cameramen shooting news in the region for the Al-Jazeera channel,” the center added.
By Baxter Dmitry
George Soros cancelled a proposed “humanitarian visit” to the Philippines after President Duterte warned him “there is a bounty on your head in these islands.“
Soros is a strong candidate for south-east Asia’s most unpopular man after being widely blamed for crashing the Thai and Malaysian economies in 1997 and sparking the Asian financial crisis through ruthless currency speculation.
President Duterte hasn’t forgiven the globalist financier. The man dubbed “Duterte Harry” by the Filipino people is also wise to the Soros agenda of divide and conquer and his brand of media manipulation.
The Philippine House of Representatives approved a proposal last week to reinstate the death penalty, and the president took the opportunity to fire a warning at George Soros: “There is a special place in hell for you, idiot. Set one foot in this country and my duty is to make you go straight there.”
Duterte and Soros have been locked in a war of words for years, with the Philippine president accusing Soros of destabilizing Asian democracies and financing editorial hit-pieces against him and his country in media outlets around the world.
Critics around the world, including in the U.S. and in Soros’ homeland of Hungary, say the liberal billionaire disguises himself as a “humanitarian” while causing chaos and manipulating the political landscape.
Duterte homed in on Human Rights Watch, which he said was attacking him to justify a $100 million, 10-year grant globalist George Soros promised it six years ago.
“This Human Rights Watch of New York, that belongs to Soros. Soros was the financier. That’s him. It’s his grant,” he said.
“They have funding money. They will really attack to justify. They chose me… they’re pounding on me. That is fine, editorials every day. I can swallow that.“
Corporate media hit pieces may have influenced international opinion of Duterte, but in his own country he is revered. He boasts a massive 83% popular approval rating across the land.
President Duterte rode into power campaigning on a ticket of major change, but unlike Western politicians who pay lip service to change before letting down their supporters, the Philippines president has delivered on his promises – in spades.
During the election campaign Duterte urged the people to kill him if he failed to resolve crime and corruption in the country during the first six months of his term.
Over one year into his term and he has delivered on his promises. He’s now famous for more than calling President Obama a “son of a whore” at a regional summit in Laos last year. Much to the Soros-influenced international community’s outrage, Duterte Harry is shooting from the hip, and cleaning up his country.
How does Duterte get away with taking on the rich and the powerful, installing law and order, and going against the globalist agenda of chaos and destruction?
The corporate media has no power over him. George Soros and corrupt oligarchs cannot use the mainstream media to destroy him because the people don’t trust what the media says anymore.
The people trust Duterte because unlike generations of politicians who came before him, he actually does what he says. His anti-globalist policies enrage the powers that be in the West, who have waged war against him through their propaganda channels in the media.
But his policies have improved the lives of citizens of the Philippines, who were suffering in a chaotic, lawless land under corrupt regimes for decades.
Whose judgement should we trust – the global cabal, or his own people?
By Brad Hoff, September 30th, 2016
An internal United Nations report which the public wasn’t supposed to see has just hit the web. And its findings contain some explosive and uncomfortable truths.
Western sanctions on Syria, the report says, are harming ordinary civilians the most – preventing hospitals from accessing basic medical equipment and even hindering effective humanitarian aid.
The 40-page UN investigation was leaked to The Intercept‘s Rania Khalek, and was subsequently put online. The report describes a humanitarian crisis in Syria that is the worst the world has seen since World War II, due to the five-year-long conflict that has engulfed the country. It also outlines the many ways that Syria is being squeezed economically by the West, which it describes as:
some of the most complicated and far-reaching sanctions regimes ever imposed.
Western sanctions harming civilians
While the US, UK, and EU governments have consistently claimed that their driving concern in Syria is the protection of civilians, the report shows Western actions to be a prime factor responsible for actually increasing civilian suffering. Sectors such as medicine, banking, and energy are among those that have been hit the hardest by punitive sanctions placed on the embattled Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. This translates to the average Syrian living without power, urgent medicines, and basic food staples in a collapsed economy.
US restrictions are the most stringent, and apply to all items wherever they’re located, even if they’ve been produced abroad. The Intercept confirms that:
Items that contain 10% or more of US content, including medical devices, are banned from export to Syria.
Preventing aid and medical relief
The UN report also describes the negative ‘trickle down’ effect that sanctions are having on aid and humanitarian workers in all parts of Syria. The report’s summary findings conclude that:
The combined effect of comprehensive, unilateral sanctions, terrorist concerns and the ongoing security environment have created immense hurdles for those engaged in delivering immediate humanitarian aid and wider stabilisation programmes.
One eyewitness interviewed by the UN team (described as a “European Doctor operating in Syria”) said the following:
Even though in theory it should be possible to procure medical equipment, the indirect effects of sanctions, especially the challenges it creates for Syrians to access bank accounts, makes the import of medical instruments and other medical supplies immensely difficult, nearly impossible.
The EU lifts sanctions… on weapons
But while life-saving medical devices are kept out, weapons pour in. In 2013, the EU lifted its arms embargo on Syria for the express purpose of shipping weapons and other supplies to anti-government militants. At the time, an investigation by The Independent found that:
France was instrumental, alongside the UK, in lifting the EU arms embargo on Syria which would allow supplies to be sent to the rebels.
So while medical supplies, fuel, and essential infrastructural items like water pumps became restricted, weapons and military equipment flowed into Syria by legal means. At the same time, many experts say, Western sanctions actually increased civilian dependence on Syrian state institutions, a pattern previously seen in Iraq.
Indeed, The Intercept’s analysis of the UN report warns that Syrian sanctions are creating a situation similar to that of Iraq in the 1990s:
The US continued to rationalise the Iraq sanctions even after a report was released by UNICEF in 1999 that showed a doubling in mortality rates for children under the age of 5 after sanctions were imposed in the wake of the Gulf War, and the death of 500,000 children.
UN says the issue is too “politically sensitive”
The UN report stops short of directly condemning the Western sanctions regime on Syria. And the report’s “Executive Summary” section contains a potential clue as to why the report had to be leaked instead of being made available through official channels for public debate and scrutiny:
discussion on whether unilateral measures are appropriate is a politically sensitive and highly emotive subject, and is therefore outside of the scope of this report.