Trump pulls out of the “Iran Deal”


It’s no secret that I’ve strongly supported Trump the past few years. I’ve lost friends in real life for doing that, but I haven’t let that deter me, because it’s more important to me to say what I believe is right, rather than what is popular. I truly believed that out of all the potential candidates in the 2016 election, that he was the best choice available, and I still stand by that belief. However, contrary to what readers of this blog, or those former real life friends, may or may not believe, I am not an ideologue, nor am I the kind of person who will attempt to defend the indefensible. When Trump does something that I believe is wrong, I will not make excuses for him, nor will I betray my own beliefs for him. Just as I found myself a little over a year ago, I once again find myself having to criticise Trump for an action that he has undertaken, namely, his actions towards the Iran nuclear deal.


In the years since the 9/11 attacks, the Western world has had to deal with Islamic terrorist attacks on a pretty frequent basis, and this has really gone into overdrive in the past five years or so. It is also quite well known that the vast majority of this terrorism can be linked back to Saudi Arabia, a country which has one of the worst records when it comes to “Human Rights”, and a country which is known for supporting groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups which have the blood of countless innocent people on their hands. Yet despite these obvious facts, Saudi Arabia is never a target of Western regime change. Saudi Arabia never suffers sanctions. Saudi Arabia barely even suffers so much as simple criticism, either from the American political establishment, or the tightly controlled mainstream media.

Just look at the video above. The US official is asked an uncomfortable question about the hypocritical double standards that the US has in regards to Saudi Arabia and Iran. He spends about 20 awkward seconds in silence trying to think of an answer, only to start rambling a non-answer instead. This is because there is absolutely zero justification for how the US treats Iran in comparison to how they treat Saudi Arabia, to the point were it’s impossible to even give a plausible bullshit response.

Meanwhile Iran, a Shiite Muslim country which wages war against the Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS, and which has never been conclusively linked to any terrorist activity in the US or Europe (that I’m currently aware of at least), is without evidence, treated as one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism on the planet, is scrutinised by the international community (under US leadership) in everything that it does, and has sanctions imposed on it just for existing. This isn’t because a strong Iran is a treat to the wellbeing of the people of the US or Europe. No, this is done because Iran is perceived as a threat to one very specific country.

When the US and Europe get involved in the Middle East, it’s always for the benefit of Israel, not the for the benefit of their own citizenry.

Thanks to the internet, and the new ways of spreading information, more and more people are waking up to the “other side of the story” in regards to Israel and its conflicts in the Middle East. It’s becoming more obvious that Israel isn’t just an “innocent victim” of Muslim aggression, and  it’s becoming easier to understand that Muslim hatred towards Western civilisation is motivated by a lot more than George Bush’s idiotic explanation of “They hate us for our freedoms.”

No, they hate us because of our undying support for, and our aiding and abetting of, a country which has for the past 70 years, been committing acts of aggression against them. Murdering them. Stealing their land. Threatening them with annihilation. And using its influence in our countries, to get us to fight their battles for them. Obviously, an understanding of history will show that Muslim aggression would be happening regardless, but we’re certainly not helping with our own unnecessary aggression towards them.

This is not a photoshop btw. He really had that diagram.

It’s an open secret that Israel has an undeclared supply of nuclear weapons, an estimation of anywhere between 80 and 400 of them. Israel is one of the few countries that has never signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nothing is done about this. Yet Iran, a country which has signed the treaty, and has agreed to a deal to develop a peaceful nuclear program, under the watch of inspectors from the world’s great powers, has been undermined and slandered ever since, by a country which has been crying wolf about the “”threat” of both Iran and Iraq before it, for decades.

“Sure he lied all those other times, but he might be telling the truth now. He’s one of God’s chosen people afterall. If we can’t trust God’s chosen people, who can we trust?”

And unfortunately, Trump has gone along with it. It’s not really surprising, because in fairness, he did outright say that he was planning on doing this, during the time that he was campaigning. To give credit where credit is due, he does seem to sincerely try and implement the policies that he ran on, both the good and the bad, but it’s still disheartening to see him go along with such a stupid decision.

“Such an aggressive country. If only they were as peaceful as our great and trusted ally, Israel.”

Anytime something like this happens, whether it’s bombing Syria, or backing Iran into a corner, I’m concerned that it could set off a conflict, which with how precarious international relations are right now, could escalate to the level of a World War. This is why I must make it clear that I strongly oppose this action on Trump’s part, and I condemn him for it. I think the Iran deal was a good thing, and it’s something I have to give Obama credit for. I’m not pleased at all with Trump for backing out and if I was Kim Jong-un, this would make a very strong negative impression on me.

This one is a Photoshop, but is it really that much more absurd than the real thing?

There is however one potential upside to this action. It once again draws attention to how much power and influence Israel has over American foreign policy, and it might help wake up more people to how much of a problem this is. If enough people realise that America’s policies are done, not for the benefit of Americans, but instead for the benefit of someone else, who gives back nothing in return, they may finally start demanding that changes be made. And if those changes are made, we might start seeing some improvements in the world.


WW3 potentially back on the cards.

This is what they actually expect us to believe is happening in Syria.

We live in a world full of gullible idiots, who can easily be manipulated by appealing to their emotions and their naive belief that they can trust the word of “authorities”, “experts”, or figures who they perceive as being smarter and better informed than themselves. It doesn’t matter how often these “authorities” and “experts” lie, and get caught doing so. With enough willpower, they’re able to get people believing them again, just by forcing their preferred narrative hard enough and long enough.

Ever since 9/11, the US and its allies have been engaged in an almost perpetual war. The targeted enemy has changed a few times, but all these wars are basically just an extension of the same conflict. And all these wars have been based on more than their fair share of lies. It’s well known at this point, that Saudi Arabia were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Yet the US used it as justification to declare war of Afghanistan instead, who had nothing to do with it.

Then about a year and half later, they declare war on Iraq, allegedly because Saddam Hussein was “confirmed” to have weapons of mass destruction. We now know that this was not true at all and no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. It was never confirmed that he had these weapons. Nor was it a stupid mistake, or a case of carelessness on their part. It was a complete lie that was deliberately and cynically delivered, to justify a war of aggression, to a naive and trusting population.

Look at how easily he lies. He should have been hauled before The Hague for this.

“The main reason we went into Iraq was because we thought he had weapons of Mass Destruction”. No you didn’t, you fucking liar. You just used that as a justification for an aggressive and unnecessary war.

Then of course, we have the situation with Libya a few years back. I’ve already covered the lies and inaccuracies in the narrative surrounding that topic, in great detail here. In every one of these situations, Western politicians, and the mainstream media, told terrible lies, in order to justify their actions. Then when they were finished, the countries were left in ruins, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of ordinary people left dead. All this done, allegedly in the name of “human rights” and “democracy”.

Now here we are with Syria. Just like with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Gaddafi in Libya, we have Bashar al-Assad, another brutal, genocidal maniac (if we’re to believe the mainstream media), who needs to be taken out, in order to protect the “human rights” of the ordinary Syrian people. Just as I did with Libya, I’ve also discussed in detail, how nonsensical this narrative is as well, and that can be read right here.

Remember everyone. THIS right here, is the brutal monster, that is currently using chemical weapons on citizens, for no reason.

Unusually, unlike most other countries that have come into the crosshairs for Western sanctioned “regime change”, Syria has actually managed to fight back and survive for quite some time. The war has been going on for more than seven years at this point, and yet, Assad is still in power. In fact, he’s winning the war, pushing out the opposition, and based on current projections, it’s only a matter of time, until the war is over, with a decisive victory for the Assad government.

Quite recently, Trump announced that he planned on pulling American military forces out of Syria, one of the issues he ran his campaign on, and one of the reasons why I so strongly supported him, over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Yet a few days after he announced this, a chemical weapon attack is alleged to have happened in Syria, with the finger being pointed directly at the Syrian government. With this alleged attack, there are calls for Trump to “take action” of some kind in Syria, and we all know from experience, what that means. They want Trump to attack Syria and get rid of Assad.

I think we need to think about this whole thing critically. What logical reason could Assad have had for using chemical weapons, especially at a time when he’s decisively winning the war, rather than having his back up against the wall, and at a time when the US was getting ready to leave the country? It’s obvious what the reaction would be to the use of chemical weapons, so why would he do it. We’re left with one of four possible explanations in my opinion.

  1. He’s such an insane maniac, that his sadism and bloodlust, is greater than his own sense of self-preservation.
  2. Despite their desire to get rid of him, he somehow benefits from having the US present in his country, so he did the attack deliberately, knowing it would force them to stay.
  3. The attack was committed by other forces that were opposed to Assad, in order to frame him, and to give the US a moral justification to attack him, which they currently lack.
  4. The attack never actually happened. All the footage was staged by actors, in the style of the 1997 movie “Wag the Dog”.
An example of explanation 4, perhaps?

Personally, when I look at the four possible explanations, I think option 3 is the most likely to be true, though I’m not discounting the possibility of option 4 either. It has come out that the UN is unable to confirm that any chemical attack even happened, so is it really hard to believe that perhaps it never did happen at all?

That perhaps, all the footage we’ve seen of the “victims” was actually staged by actors in a studio somewhere, exactly like the plot of that “Wag the Dog” film?

On the other hand, lets ignore all this and pretend that hypothetically speaking, we do believe that the chemical attacks were real, and that the Assad government were the ones behind them. Lets say, the US does come up with a moral justification to retaliate against these blatant war crimes and violations of human rights, despite the fact that they never respond to the war crimes and human rights violations that are committed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even if it is true, can anyone answer this question?

Does any of this justify starting another Middle Eastern war, one which could potentially drag in Russia and escalate to the level of a World War?

Even if Assad is guilty, how exactly is bombing his country (which will naturally include innocent civilians) and potentially starting a war that will result in hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide, and the potential destruction of the entire planet, an appropriate response? What is the justification for that? Even if Assad is brutally murdering innocent civilians with chemical weapons (and for the record, I don’t believe that he is), is starting the biggest and most destructive war in history, really the right response?

No, I don’t think any person who isn’t a psychopath, believes this. Any non-psychopathic person would find this scenario horrifying. But here’s the problem though. People have this self-centered belief that just because they think a certain way, that others think the same way. It doesn’t work like that. To scoff at the possibility of World War breaking out, is not only incredibly naive. It’s also incredibly arrogant thinking. The world is dominated by psychopaths, who have absolutely no conscience, and don’t give a damn about the consequences of their actions. If they think a nuclear war will be beneficial for their goals, don’t think for a second that they’ll think like you and me, and decide against it. They’ll do it in a heartbeat. And we’ve seen how much they’ve demonised both Syria and Russia the past few years.

I don’t believe that a big war is definitely going to happen. I’d like to think that common sense will win out in the end. But I’m not naive enough to dismiss the possibility entirely. I really feel as if all the anti-Russian hysteria the past few years, has been to condition the population to develop a visceral hatred towards them, and a fear that they’re the ones who are being aggressive towards us. That hasn’t been done for nothing. I really think there’s a possibility that they might very well try and start something with Russia, and at the same time, present it to the public as a defensive measure against “years of documented Russian aggression.”

“Russia interfered in our (UK) democracy and caused Brexit.” (No evidence)

“Russia interfered in our (US) democracy, and helped that racist Trump win.” (No evidence)

“Russia aggressively annexed Crimea.” (After the west sponsored a coup which toppled the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government)

“Russia poisoned that Spy on British soil.” (No evidence)

“Russia is working with the madman Assad, who is using chemical weapons on his own people.” (No evidence)

“So now we’re going to stand up to those Russian aggressors and fight back.”

Can you honestly say you couldn’t see something like this happening?

Syria finally defeats ISIS

That face when you’ve finally crushed your enemies successfully.

There’s some fantastic news in regards to the Syrian civil war which has been taking place for the past 5 years and seemed as if it would never end. The forces of good, the Syrian government and their Russian and Iranian allies have finally succeeded in crushing the remaining ISIS opposition and driving them out of their last stronghold within Syrian and Iraqi territory. This is wonderful news, except for those who profit off of human misery and death.

From CBC

Islamic State militants withdrew Thursday from their last stronghold in Syria, a strategic town near the border with Iraq, following a government offensive that has effectively left the extremist group’s fighters dispersed in villages and small towns in the desert.

The Syrian military declared the town liberated after intense battles that killed a large number of militants, including leaders. The military said they are still chasing other ISIS militants in different directions in the desert.

“The liberation of Boukamal is of great importance because it is a declaration of the fall of this group’s project in the region generally and the collapse of its supporters’ illusions to divide it, control large parts of the Syria-Iraq borders and secure supply routes between the two countries,” Army spokesperson Gen. Ali Mayhoub said in a televised statement.

Syrian pro-government media said Syrian troops had clashed with remnants of ISIS militants in the town after they entered it late Wednesday. On Thursday, they reported the town clear of ISIS fighters.

Pro-Syrian media reported the town was liberated. Al-Ikhbariya TV’s journalist reported from the road to the town, joyfully breaking out on camera: “Daesh is finished. Live.”

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said government forces and allied troops, including Iraqi forces who linked from across the border, are combing through Boukamal after ISIS militants withdrew.

With the collapse of ISIS in Boukamal, Islamic State militants have no major territorial control in Syria and Iraq and are believed to have dispersed in the desert west and east of the Euphrates River. U.S. officials estimated that there were between 2,500 and 3,500 ISIS militants around Boukamal and that leading members of the group were also believed to have taken refuge in the town. The group has a small presence near the capital Damascus.

ISIS has suffered consecutive defeats at the hands of separate but simultaneous offensives in Iraq and Syria by the Russian-backed Syrian forces and allied militias as well as U.S.-backed Iraqi and Syrian fighters.

Despite its fall, the group’s media apparatus has remained active and its fighters are likely to keep up their insurgency from desert areas.

The swift fall of Boukamal in eastern Deir el-Zour province was accelerated after Iraqi forces seized Qaim, the town across the border last weekend, also controlling a strategic crossing between the two countries.

Iraqi militia forces participate

A senior Iraqi official said there was an agreement Tuesday to send Iraqi paramilitaries to Syria to take part in the Boukamal operation, adding that the Syrians were to supply them with weapons and gear. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

An Iraqi spokesperson for the Popular Mobilization Forces has told The Associated Press last week that his forces, which are part of the Iraqi security forces, will participate in the operation and will head north to protect the borders and secure the road from Iran to Lebanon.

Boukamal is the last urban centre for the militants in both Iraq and Syria where Syrian troops — backed by Russia and Iranian-supported militias — and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces are vying for control of the strategic border town.

Washington is wary of increasing Iran influence in the area and has backed the SDF in their bid to uproot ISIS from the borders with Iraq. The proximity of forces in the area has raised concerns about potential clashes between them as they approach Boukamal from opposite sides of the Euphrates River, and now from across the border with Iraq.

It was not clear if the government seizure of the town means the end of the race for control of territory previously held by ISIS.

So far the Kurdish-led Syria Democratic Forces have focused on the area east of the Euphrates, seizing a number of oil and gas fields and securing large swathes of areas along the border with Iraq, as well as the newly liberated Raqqa city.

So it seems that there are still some jihadists in Syria, who have managed to evade capture or death so far. Personally, I’m really hoping that the Syrian military hunts them down like vermin and brutally exterminates them before they have the chance to flee to Europe, for example to Sweden…




…Or perhaps to the UK…




…where they’ll be treated far better than they deserve.

Also, doesn’t this mean that there’s no longer any excuse for this so called “refugee crisis” that has been destroying Europe the past few years? The story we were fed was that there was a war in Syria that people were desperately fleeing for their lives from, and this is why the entirety of the population of the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, were flooding into Europe.

These young, strong, African men, were just trying to flee the Syrian civil war, which apparently spread to their homelands as well, and which doesn’t seem to harm women, children, or the elderly.

Of course we all know that this story was complete crap right from the beginning. The “refugee crisis” was always about destroying the homogeneity of European nation states, and the Syrian civil war, along with the chaos in Libya following the fall of Gaddafi’s regime, was just a convenient excuse to justify it. I was pointing this obvious reality out at least two and half years ago.  The real goal is, and always has been, about implementing the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, but if they were to come out and admit that and what it involves (nothing less than the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous European peoples), it would be resisted. So they prey on people’s altruism towards “suffering refugees” and create a false consensus in the media that the majority of people in Europe support helping them (even in situations were it’s blatantly obvious that they’re just economic migrants coming from countries far away from any warzone), and because the majority of people are politically correct cowards who don’t want to commit “wrongthink”, they go along with the narrative, and don’t resist their own ethnic cleansing.

Now that ISIS is effectively defeated and the Syrian Civil war is practically over, that justification no longer exists. But do I believe the current migrant crisis is going to come to an end because of this? Nope, absolutely not, because it was never about the Syrian civil war. More likely, I reckon they’ll just look for another excuse to justify its continuation, and I’m going to make a prediction as to what I think that justification will be. There are a lot of problems with Saudi Arabia right now, both internally, and in regards to its relationship with Lebanon. I could easily see something major kicking off there in the near future and when that happens, that will be the new excuse given for the “worst refugee crisis that the world has seen since World War 2”. Just you watch.


And he’s done it now.

I’m very disappointed in you for this Trump. You aren’t a glorious leader anymore.

I can’t believe it. He has actually done it. I was hoping he was going to wait things out, allow a proper investigation to be conducted, and not act hastily, until all the information was available..

That’s not what he did. He has actually launched an attack against Assad’s forces in Syria. Yes, the Obama regime attacked them too, but they always at least maintained plausible deniability, by pretending it was an accident, when they were trying to fight ISIS. Trump has actually admitted to what he is doing.

I can’t defend this action whatsoever. As I’ve said numerous times already, one of the main reasons I supported Trump, was because of his promise to not escalate things in the Middle East. As far as I’m concerned, he just broke that promise.

I’m deathly afraid that seeing as Assad is such a close ally of Russia’s that this could force Russia’s hand and cause them to retaliate. I do not want to see a confrontation break out between Russia and America, because that conflict has the potential to destroy us all. I also think this will have the potential to make the migrant crisis, currently destroying Europe, even worse than it already is. It certainly doesn’t help in any way. I’m disgusted with the media and political establishment for promoting this agenda, and I’m furious with Trump for falling for it.

If this leads to a war, I’ll never forgive him.

WW3 back to being a possibility again :/

This is not going to be a happy post. The truth is, I’m very worried right now. Remember about a week ago, I wrote a post about how America was no longer calling for Assad to be removed from power in Syria? I felt very good at the time, because I believed that doing this would eliminate any possibility of a conflict developing in the region between America and Russia. Such a conflict, I feel, could have potentially escalated to the point of war between the two. If that was to happen, it would in fact be the beginning of World War 3. That is not an exaggeration. That’s why I was so relieved to see Trump agree to allow Assad to keep power.

Then this had to happen:

So as soon as Trump agrees to back off on Assad, a chemical weapon attack happens, and innocent civilians, including children are effected. From a logical stand point, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do this. With the help of his Russian allies, he’s already winning the civil war, and is rapidly approaching a total victory. There’s no logical reason for him to start committing war crimes all of a sudden, and provoking a response from the United States, after they have agreed to leave him alone. Such an action could only be undertaken by an idiot or a madman, and anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to Assad speak, will know that he is neither. Nevertheless, the media and Western shill politicians instantly jumped to the conclusion that Assad and his regime were to blame, without even waiting for an investigation to be conducted first.

Some informative comments from the video above.


This comment is referring to this plan from 2013 that the CIA had to stage a chemical weapon attack in Syria, and blame it on Assad. Amazing how people are stupid enough to fall for these tricks more than once.


A British journalist in Syria offers this suggestion as to what actually happened:

According to him, what actually happened was that the terrorists (who America had been backing against Assad, before Trump came to power) had a factory that they were using to develop chemical weapons. The Syrian air force destroyed this factory, possibly without any knowledge of what was really being developed there, and this caused chemicals to leak out and harm civilians. In contrast to what the Western media is saying, it wasn’t a deliberate chemical attack from the Assad regime on his own people.

Unfortunately, Trump seems to be buying into the lies:

Some informative comments from the video above.




I just want to make it quite clear that this war is a red line issue for me with Trump. One of the main reasons I supported him at all, was because of his insistence on ending the wars in the Middle East, and his desire to forge a better relationship with Russia, unlike Hillary who was literally campaigning on shooting down Russian planes, operating in Syria. If Trump goes back on those promises, and ends up starting a war over this, I’m done with him. I will renounce my support for him, that’s how serious this issue is to me. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail here, and he’ll do the right thing. I really really hope that he does.

Good news. The US no longer insists on getting rid of Assad.

Fantastic news. It seems that under Trump, America has finally come to its senses in regards to Syria, and now realises, that getting rid of Assad, probably isn’t the best idea. In case you’re wondering as to why I think it’s a good thing to support keeping Assad in power, please read these two previous post of mine.

From Irish Independent

The US diplomatic policy on Syria is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president Bashar al-Assad leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on his fate.

This is the logical decision. I’m not saying that Assad is necessarily a saint himself, but the only alternative to him, was allowing the country to be overrun and conquered by ISIS, Al-Nusra, and other jihadist groups. Despite the propaganda in the western media, there is no evidence that any viable “moderate opposition” to Assad even exists.

The “other rebels” (which were barely any better than ISIS anyway), were never going to win. It was either going to be the legitimate Syrian government, or ISIS. America therefore, by opposing the legitimate Syrian government, was supporting ISIS.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Mr Assad must step down. “You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” US Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters.

Isn’t it funny, how the West always talks about how much they respect “democracy”, yet when a leader they don’t approve of is democratically elected, he has to go? It’s even worse, when you also consider the fact that Russia is backing Assad. They’re willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, all to get rid of a leader they don’t approve of.

“It doesn’t matter that the Syrian people support him. What matters is that WE don’t, so he has to go.”

“Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No. What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.”

A good change would be to stop supporting the terrorists that are trying to destroy the country.

The Obama administration, in its later years, was focused on reaching a deal with Russia that would eventually see Assad go, though it also shifted its focus to the fight against Isil, who captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014.

As presidential nominee, Donald Trump said defeating Isil was a higher priority than persuading Mr Assad to step down.

There it is, stated outright, that getting rid of Assad, was a higher priority to them than stopping ISIS, before Trump took over. Does any normal person (even those who don’t approve of Assad) honestly believe that ISIS is the lesser of two evils? You can be sure as well that if Hillary had won the election, she would be continuing Obama’s policies right now,  even going as far as setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, possibly shooting down Russian planes in the process, and therefore starting World War 3 with Russia.

But who cares about that, right? Sure, a third world war would be bad, but at least she doesn’t say mean words, make jokes about grabbing pussy, or enforce basic immigration laws, like that monster, Trump.

“We can’t necessarily focus on Assad the way that the previous administration did,” said Ms Haley. “Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria.”

I approve of this.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Hawaii indefinitely extended an order blocking enforcement of Mr Trump’s revised ban on travel to the US from six predominantly Muslim countries.

US District Judge Derrick Watson turned an earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii challenging Mr Trump’s travel directive as unconstitutional religious discrimination.

And this piece of shit judge is an idiot. Besides the fact that the US constitution only applies to US citizens (so it doesn’t matter if the ban discriminates against the religion of prospective immigrants, because, the US constitution doesn’t apply to them), the law is entirely on Trump’s side. In fact, it can be read right here.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. “

^I don’t think it could be any clearer than that. This judge is just playing politics and is only wasting time. It’s inevitable that after it’s appealed, that a higher court, such as the Supreme Court (assuming it has a judge that interprets the law fairly) will overturn it. In the mean time, because of this judge, while we’re waiting for this to happen, potential terrorists, who would have been banned, will get into the country, and anybody who is killed by them, their blood will be on his hands.

Anyway, no point focusing on that. I’m just glad to know that America is finally going to do the right thing in regards to Syria. Not only will this be good in the sense of fostering a better relationship between Russia and America, but if the war is brought to its end, it takes away the justification for the current ongoing migrant crisis in Europe. I don’t expect migration to stop of course (because the war was only a convenient excuse to justify it), but when it keeps on happening after the war is over, and when migrants already in Europe aren’t getting sent back, it might wake up more people as to what is actually going on.


Interesting comments from “Beach Boy’s” aunt.

I want you to cast your mind back to about a year and a half ago. It was at that time, that the world was introduced to one of the most iconic photos of recent years. I am of course referring to…





When this image hit, there was outrage all across the Western world. Suddenly, social media was flooded with people who had probably never even heard of Syria (let alone, the war that had been taking place there for about four years at that point), virtue signalling about how we needed to open up our borders and allow infinity people into our countries to live among us, so that something like this would never happen again. It didn’t seem to matter to these people that the child and his family were already safe and settled in Turkey, and the only reason they got on the boat in the first place, was because his father wanted to come to Europe to get dental work done, thus putting the child in this dangerous situation unnecessarily. No, we can’t blame the child’s selfish father for his death. It’s all Europe’s fault for having the audacity to control our borders, and not allowing infinity people to flood and overrun us from perfectly safe countries.

The dental work story was confirmed by the child’s aunt, in an interview with Sky News, as we can see in this video here.

Anyway, the Aunt made a media appearance again recently, and she had some pretty interesting comments to make, comments which more or less line up with things that I’ve already been saying.

From RT

The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee toddler who drowned in 2015 on his way to Europe told RT.
But…but… that’s impossible. The Western mainstream media is a bastion of integrity. Well except for all those lies they always seem to tell, such as the ones listed in this video for example.

Or the fact that they may very well be committing fraud against their advertisers, by possibly using Chinese bots to artificially drive up traffic on their sites. Nevertheless, we should probably continue to trust them anyway, because they’re clearly very honest and trustworthy.

“Our country is being destroyed by outsiders,” said Tima Kurdi – a Syrian-born Canadian lawyer and the aunt of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy who died in September 2015 en route to the Greek island of Kos from Turkey – adding that “Western countries are not doing anything” about that.

Outsiders? But the media insisted that what is actually happening, is that the ordinary Syrian people are rising up against a tyrant who is brutally oppressing them. A tyrant, who is so brutal, yet was democratically re-elected in 2014, in a landslide victory, that had international observers present, who claim it was fair and transparent.

Ordinary Syrian people, who are just trying to free themselves from a tyrant.
The brutal tyrant himself, possibly getting ready to eat that child.

She said the death of her nephew became “a wake-up call to the world, a message from God, who told us [that] enough is enough,” adding that the Syrian people “were suffering for four years [at that time] and Syria was crying out to the world for help but nobody was hearing” to these pleas, as “there was not enough media coverage until” the picture of the body of her nephew washed ashore in Turkish resort city of Bodrum made global headlines.

That image prompted politicians in many Western countries to open their borders and take in refugees. However, “months later, they started to forget that image and just got back to their everyday business, but the suffering [of the Syrian people] continued,” Kurdi said.

Yeah, they opened up their borders alright. The problem though, is that they weren’t just opened to Syrians fleeing the war. They were opened up to pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, and this has caused all kinds of chaos in Europe.

She went on to say that the West not only did “nothing to end this terrible war,” but also conducted a “terrible” regime change policy in Syria that actually only made the situation even worse. The Western funding of the so-called moderate rebels only prolongs the suffering of the Syrian people, Kurdi stressed, adding that “there are no moderate rebels in Syria.”

There was no “also” about the attempted regime change. Getting rid of Assad was the sole reason that the US and its allies, had any interest in interfering in the war. They wanted to do this because Assad is one of Iran’s closest allies in the region, and thus, one of the greatest threats to Israel.

“When [Western governments] fund the ‘moderate’ rebels, their [aid] somehow eventually ends up in the hands of the most powerful groups on the ground, which are Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL],” she said.



It’s just an unlucky chance occurrence that “somehow”, the weapons intended for the non-existent “moderate rebels” always seems to end up in the hands of the terrorist groups that Assad and Russia are fighting against, and which the US also claims to be against (yet won’t cooperate with Russia and the Syrian government against them).

Maybe it’s just a case of mistaken identity.

The military solution would never work in Syria, Kurdi said, and “we will just see more suffering and more people will die.” She added that she does not take any side in this conflict and supports neither Syrian President Bashar Assad nor the opposition, but she had talked to many Syrians who live in refugee camps in Turkey, and believes that the Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict is biased.


The Western media report that “only President Bashar [Assad] kills his own people,” she said, adding that this sounds absurd to the Syrians. “I want people to understand one thing: if President Assad wants to stay in power in his country, he has to fight for his country but he would not kill his own people as he needs their support.”

But…but… he’s clearly insane. Sure, he needs their support to maintain power, but clearly, he’s just brutally murdering his own citizens, because he’s an unfeeling monster, who takes a sadistic pleasure in murdering his own people for absolutely no reason.

Also, it doesn’t seem to matter if he’s killing them, because the Syrian people are all clearly stupid, seeing as they chose to re-elect him anyway. That narrative makes perfect sense, right?

The reports in the West on Syria “do not make sense,”


as “there is more than just the [Syrian] government and Russia there, there are many rebels, who are fighting and killing my people,” she said, adding that “nobody [in the West] reports about rape” committed by the rebels and stressing that those stories are “terrible.”

If I didn’t know better, I would start thinking that maybe the West has a biased agenda here, and are trying to demonise only one side in this conflict, while ignoring the atrocities committed by the other.

Tima Kurdi admitted that Assad’s forces “did hurt the Syrian people,” but did so unintentionally. She also stressed that Syria was “peaceful and safe” before the war.


“Most Syrian people were just living their lives before the war and did not get involved in any politics,” she said, adding that “all kinds of religions” co-existed peacefully in Syria. “Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawites, Christians – we all lived together and respected each other,” Kurdi, who was born and initially lived in Damascus, told RT, adding that “most Syrian people did not want to leave their homes” when the war came.

She then addressed the issue of the refugee crisis and said that the only way to stop it is to put an end to the war in Syria.

Ideally, that would be the case, but as I’ve said before, helping the Syrian people, was never the real motivation behind this push for “refugees” to enter Europe. It was just a convenient excuse to justify it to the public. As soon as the Syrian war ends, the powers that be, will just try to find some other excuse to justify the fact that millions of people from countries other than Syria are entering Europe, allegedly to escape the Syrian civil war.

“I encourage the governments of each country to help find a political solution and [to stop violence] in my country. Bring peace to Syria so that you won’t need to see those refugees anymore,” she told RT.

I can think of one political solution that might solve this problem.

If these two work together, rather than against each other, to do the right thing, I’m sure they can sort it out.

Now of course, RT is funded by the Russian government, so it’s understandable that people might be hesitant to take any information they provide at face value (if only people were equally skeptical towards the likes of CNN, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, etc.). So rather than just taking the text at face value, here’s a video of the woman actually saying these things.

Hopefully, this war will be ended before long.


Russia finds mass graves in Aleppo

Just a brief post because I think this story is very interesting. I hope anybody who was whining about the situation in Aleppo, and calling for “something to be done” will see this story and realise that it’s a good thing that Russia and the Syrian government have liberated that city.

From Irish Independent

Russian troops have discovered mass graves in Aleppo with bodies showing signs of torture and mutilation, said the Russian Defence Ministry.

Remember how the Western media was crying about all the “atrocities” that Russia and the Syrian government were supposedly committing against Aleppo? What will they say now that these mass graves of people who were obviously killed by the forces that were in control of Aleppo the last few years, the same forces that Russia and the Syrian government were fighting against, have been discovered?

We were supposed to believe that Aleppo was better off in the hands of people like this.

The Russians “found mass graves of several dozens of Syrians who suffered atrocious torture and massacre,” said ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov.

He said some of the bodies have been mutilated and some had gunshot wounds.

Who would have thought that the Western backed “moderate rebels” would behave in such a barbaric manner?

The Russian Air Force has helped Syrian president Bashar Assad to capture Syria’s largest city after weeks of a siege. Russia has since dispatched military police to the city.

Maj Gen Konashenkov also criticised the opposition rebels, who controlled eastern Aleppo before they were pushed out earlier this month, for laying multiple booby traps and mines across town, endangering the civilian population.

“But Russia and the Syrian government were the real danger to the civilian population.”

Anyway, it’s no great secret that the West was backing the forces that were in control of Aleppo. So in that case, shouldn’t those in power in the West have to answer for this?


These mass graves full of bodies of people who experienced torture at the hands of Western backed forces serve as evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the Western governments were complicit in these crimes, shouldn’t they have to take responsibility for them too?

No, my guess is, they’ll just dismiss the whole thing as yet another example of “fake news”, and try to ignore it all.

Good news, Trump plans to end support for Syrian rebels.

Good news everyone. Trump has made it clear that he is interested in working with Russia, rather than against them in the ongoing Syrian conflict. As well as guaranteeing peace between these two great nuclear powers, it will also likely bring the Syrian civil war much closer to its end. Not only will this benefit the Syrian people themselves, but it will take away a lot of the justification for the continuing migrant crisis currently destroying  Europe, meaning that when the invasion inevitably continues anyway, more people will hopefully understand what is actually going on and will hopefully start waking up in greater numbers. The only real losers in this situation are the Syrian opposition forces.

What will these great ‘advocates of human rights and democracy’, do now?

From Independent

President-elect Donald Trump has reaffirmed his campaign trail position that assisting the Syrian government in fighting Isis should be the US’ main objective in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad.

Oh yes, all those “moderate rebels” who don’t really exist, are pleading with Trump to help them overthrow Assad so they can install a functioning democracy instead… just like the one that was installed in Libya after that horrible, Assad-like dictator Gaddafi was overthrown by rebels with the help of NATO.









I just don’t understand how Trump can look at the great success of Libya, and not want something similar for the Syrian people. He must have a heart of stone… or perhaps he just has a functioning brain and can see what a stupid idea it would be to keep going down this path.

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of Isis,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.

Mr Trump has stated that while he “did not like [Mr Assad] at all”, shoring up his regime is the best way to stem the extremism that has flourished in the chaos of the civil war and threatens the US. 

“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend”.

This could be the future.

You don’t have to like Assad, but this just seems like basic sanity to me. ISIS needs to be crushed. ISIS are a far greater threat to the world than Assad is. How many terrorist attacks have been orchestrated in the West by Assad compared to those orchestrated by ISIS? In fact, forget actual attacks, how many times has Assad even threatened to use terrorism against the West? I sure can’t think of any, so it makes absolutely no sense to aid ISIS in this conflict.

He has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.

“Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who those people are,” he told the Journal, referring to the hardline Sunni Islamist elements present in rebel ranks. If the US attacks Mr Assad, “We end up fighting Russia,” he added.

Which was of course the main reason why I supported Trump over Hillary. Yeah, there were plenty of other reasons for my support too: his contempt for political correctness, his opposition to free trade agreements like TTIP (which  he has already killed off ), his calling out of international finance controlling the world, his opposition to prolonging this Syrian civil war, his stance against illegal immigration, etc., but it was his desire for peace and cooperation with Russia, that was the most important issue to me. I genuinely feared that with the decline in US/Russian relations, that we were on the verge of seeing WW3 break out, and that a Hillary Clinton victory would have all but guaranteed it. I’m so happy to see that things are turning out for the better now.

Thankfully avoided.

Mr Trump’s shock victory in the US election this week was welcomed by Moscow and Tehran, as well as Damascus, where aides to Mr Assad were cautiously optimistic in interviews on Thursday.  The president is “ready” to cooperate with Mr Trump going forward, they said.
To date the US has tacitly supported rebels in Syria both logistically and financially, along with Turkey and Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yep, the US and their allies have been funding the rebel groups. However, it has also come out in Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actually been funding ISIS itself, and that Hillary Clinton (and therefore presumably the Obama government) was well aware of this. So you have America funding and arming Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funding and arming ISIS, and America knows this, meaning that America is knowingly funding and arming ISIS through proxies, while at the same time telling the public that they’re only funding and arming these non-existent “moderate rebels” who allegedly have similar goals to ISIS in regards to toppling the Assad government.

The long-standing US position has been that Mr Assad must be removed from power and democratic elections take place to end the complex and multisided conflict, now in its sixth year. 

Democratic elections must take place? You mean like the one that took place in 2014, had international observers, who claim it was fair and transparent, and which was won by Assad?

Sure, he got a majority of the vote in an election in which there were observers from over 30 countries, who claim it was fair and transparent. However, this isn’t democracy, because the US doesn’t approve of the result. Saudi Arabia meanwhile is democratic enough for their liking.

Mr Assad’s military strategy – including air strikes targeting civilian infrastructure, siege tactics and alleged use of chemical weapons  – has been responsible for far more civilian deaths since 2011 than rebel groups or Isis militants, analysts and monitors say. 

And yet they never seem to provide any evidence to back up these accusations. I wonder, are these analysts and monitors, the same people who also claim that Assad has no mandate to rule despite being democratically elected. Also, how do they explain the idea of the Syrian people choosing to re-elect Assad in a landslide victory in 2014 in fair and transparent elections, after three years of him allegedly committing war crimes against them? Which of these three narratives makes the most sense?

  1. Assad commits brutal atrocities against his own people, but they choose to re-elect him anyway in legitimate elections because they’re stupid/suicidal.
  2. The international observers who say the election was legitimate are all liars.
  3. The international observers are all telling the truth and it’s actually the US who are lying, just like the times they lied in the past about the reasons for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know which narrative I believe.

Yep, I won’t be fooled by American lies again.

Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton had proposed a no-fly-zone over Syria, a position rebels had been hopeful could stem the aerial attacks that have turned the tide of the war in Mr Assad’s favour since Russia began lending the Syrian government military support in September 2015. 

And as I’ve mentioned many times in the past, such a policy could have resulted in America shooting down Russian planes, thus starting a world war between America and Russia.

So with everything we know so far, does it make any sense that we could have potentially seen WW3 because America wanted to protect from Russian planes, non-existent moderate rebels, who are fighting for similar purposes as ISIS against a democratically elected ruler, who was later democratically re-elected by his people, despite apparently horribly oppressing them and committing war crimes against them (with no evidence to support any of this), in elections that were fair and transparent, according to international observers who were present at the time?


Yes, my head hurts trying to comprehend this insanity too.

After Mr Trump’s victory this week, the main Syrian opposition group the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) reached out to his staff asking him to protect civilians.

President Anas Al-Abdah said the SNC had sent Mr Trump its congratulations and was in touch about a “comprehensive new approach” to Syria.

Might I suggest unconditional surrender as the “new approach”?

The US must “establish peace in our region and to find fair and swift solutions for the threat of terrorism… especially the state terrorism practiced by the Syrian regime against the Syrian people,” Riad Hijab, head of the opposition High Negotiations Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. 

Still waiting to see the evidence of this state terrorism. I’m sure Assad is no saint himself, but when you look at the opposition, as well as some of the other regimes in the region that the US is allied with, he sure seems like one in comparison.

Other rebels on the ground were less enthusiastic, predicting more bloodshed no matter what Mr Trump’s policy ultimately ends up being on a war which has killed more than 400,000 people to date and driven half the Syrian population from their homes. 

All so needless and pointless too. If only the US hadn’t caused this unjust war for Israel’s benefit, those people wouldn’t have had to lose their lives. Hopefully, when Trump is officially in power, and this war is brought to an end, the architects behind it will be brought to justice for their crimes.

Perhaps the same kind of “justice” that Gaddafi experienced.

“I guess most Syrians are reacting in a similar way today, trying to hide their disappointment by making [jokes],” said Wissam Zarqa, a rebel media activist in besieged east Aleppo

“We live in hope… but the only bright side to this is that we will not live on false promises now,” he added, referring to the international community’s inability to stop Russian air strikes on the area’s 250,000 trapped civilians. 

“With [US President] Obama, we had enough of his false promises and fake red lines.”  

Abu Hamed, head of the military council of rebel group Liwa al-Haq Brigade, was similarly dismissive. “The Americans were never honest with us,” he said, speaking from Hama. “They left us in a quagmire that drowned the Syrians… everyone is trading with our blood and suffering.”

Of course they weren’t honest with you. They never gave a damn about any of you. You were all just tools to be used to their advantage.

This article fills me with a lot of optimism. After a scary year or so that seemed to be getting worse and worse in the past month or so, we’re already seeing some potential good coming from Trump’s victory, and the man isn’t even inaugurated yet. Who knows what more we could see happen in the near future.

“Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize winner…”

The fate of the world could be decided tomorrow.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

I remember about a year and half ago when Donald Trump first announced that he was throwing his hat into the US presidential race, that I really didn’t think too much about it. I figured it was just a dumb publicity stunt and although I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points he was making, and thought he was pretty damn funny with how blunt and unapologetic he was in regards to the outrage he was causing, I didn’t take him all that seriously at first. However, after seeing the types of political hacks he was competing against, as well as the passionate hatred he was inspiring in the controlled media and political establishment, I started paying more and more attention, and soon realised that there was a lot more to him than I saw at first. However, it wasn’t until roughly one year ago when I first became aware of the escalating tensions between America and Russia (something a Hillary presidency will only make much worse), that I came to this conclusion.

Donald Trump, that pompous, arrogant, obnoxious, reality TV buffoon, may very well be the world’s only hope for survival.

Unfortunately, a lot of people can’t be reasoned with.

Once again, I am faced with a story that fills me with dread. We’re just one day away from seeing the big decision being made, and yet we’re still seeing an escalation in tension between Russia and NATO, as if a conflict between the two is inevitable. But it isn’t inevitable. There is still time to resolve these problems, if the right decision is made tomorrow.

From Independent (UK)

Up to 300,000 Nato troops have been put on alert amid rising tensions between Russia and the Baltic states.

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of Nato, said the alliance hoped to speed up the response time of thousands of its troops to allow it to react to a combat situation more effectively.

And yet I still haven’t seen any evidence that Russia are the aggressors, so I don’t know what they would need to respond to. To me, it looks more like they’re getting these troops prepared, not as a response to possible Russian aggression, but rather to attack Russia themselves.


In October, it was reported Nato was preparing to station 4,000 troops on the Russian border with the Baltic states in its biggest military build-up since the Cold War. The troops will be summoned from nations across the alliance, including the UK.

“We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways,” Mr Stoltenberg told The Times.

“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years – tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.

Can you really blame them though? With how much NATO has expanded since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the aggressive rhetoric being spouted against them from America, I honestly can’t blame them for building up their own military forces. It’s either that, or leave themselves defenceless against this aggression.

“We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”

What propaganda? This sounds like projection to me. I’ve heard plenty of propaganda against Russia in regards to Ukraine, their actions in Syria, and their alleged (but still no evidence for) hackings in America. What propaganda is Russia spreading?


Mr Stoltenberg refused to be drawn on the specific number of troops being put on alert, but Britain’s outgoing Nato representative Sir Adam Thomson said it was likely to be around 300,000.

Sir Adam said the aim was to find a way to mobilise the troops within two months, instead of the typical time of around six months.

To me that makes it sound as if they are trying to speed up the schedule of getting this war underway. I think it’s interesting to note that even if Trump does win tomorrow, he won’t actually be inaugurated until January 20th, plenty of time for Obama to start this war that the American establishment so clearly wants, before Trump has a chance to prevent it himself.

The proposition was discussed by Nato defence ministers at a conference in October. “There are a large number of people in the armed forces of Nato allies, we are looking into how more of them can be ready at shorter notice,” Mr Stoltenberg added.

Nato is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid warfare and cyberattacks by Russia and other non-Nato states, according to Sir Adam.

Alleged cyberattacks which they still haven’t provided any evidence that Russia is guilty of. This is just one of the many examples of the big lie in action yet again. Keep saying something over and over, and people will eventually believe that it’s true, no matter how little proof is provided.


The alliance’s response is in part a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as a bid to reassure ex-Soviet states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all Nato members, who fear Moscow could try a similar tactic again.

Not a fair comparison. Crimea was historically part of Russia even before the existence of the Soviet Union. It became a part of Ukraine for administration purposes during Soviet times, when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would always be one anyway. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remained a part of Ukraine, though its population has always been an ethnic Russian majority, who favour close ties with Russia. When the Billionaire George Soros paid a group of thugs to topple the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government, and replace it with a pro-EU/America, puppet government, Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own interests, and the Crimean people voted in a landslide to rejoin Russia (though I will admit, it is debateable if such a referendum can be considered fully transparent when Russia was in control of the region). The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Crimea to those other ex-Soviet states, and I don’t think Russia has any interest in annexing any of them.

A US think-tank has said it believes Russia could overrun Nato’s current military force in the Baltic states in a matter of hours, if a conflict began.

Yeah, that really wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I reckon if it were not for America’s protection, Russia could probably overrun all  of Europe pretty quickly, even the great powers like Germany, France, and the UK.

Nearly half of Russians fear Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian conflict could lead to World War III, a recent poll found.

And I think so too, though I don’t blame Russia (whose actions in Syria I believe are justified overall), I blame America.

Last week, it was reported Russian troops were planning to conduct military training exercises in Serbia involving 150 paratroopers, while Nato holds an emergency exercise drill in neighbouring Montenegro.

I really have this weird fear that even if Trump does win, the establishment might just trigger the war anyway just before he takes power, making it that much harder for him to resolve things that it would, if he was to get in beforehand. Nevertheless, I still think from the point of view of peace, he’s the better choice. If the war does kick off between now and the time of inauguration, I would rather have him be the one to come to power in the hopes that he can make peace with Putin later. Hillary, will be only too happy to continue the war if she comes to power.

The choice is in your hands America. Please make the right one.