ISIS & Africa terrorist groups stirring new, bigger migrant crisis for Europe – UN food chief

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau speaking in a video message. January 2, 2018 / AFP

Islamic State leaders who fled Syria are now conspiring with terrorist groups in Africa to use food as a recruitment tool and weapon to trigger another migrant crisis in Europe, the head of the UN World Food Program has warned.

David Beasley said that Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) was partnering with terrorist groups like Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda to spark a wave of African migration into Europe – and infiltrate the ranks of migrants in the process.

Many IS militants are fleeing from the wannabe caliphate that failed to appear in Syria and Iraq. But now they have reportedly found refuge in Africa’s Sahel region, a belt of semi-arid land spanning east-west across Africa south of the Sahara Desert. According to Beasley, the terrorist coalition is now using food as a weapon to destabilize the region, which is home to 500 million people, and force a new wave of mass migration into Europe.

“You are going to face a similar pattern of what took place years ago, except you are going to have more ISIS and extremist groups infiltrating migration,” Beasley told the Guardian during a visit to Brussels for a two-day Syria summit.

The size of the crisis will also be far worse this time around, Beasley warned. “My comment to the Europeans is that if you think you had a problem resulting from a nation of 20 million people like Syria because of destabilization and conflict resulting in migration, wait until the greater Sahel region of 500 million people is further destabilized. And this is where the European community and international community have got to wake up.”

Referring to the threat of an African migration wave into Europe, Beasley told the Associated Press last month the migration crisis created by the war in Syria “could be like a drop in the bucket compared to what’s coming your way.”

Beasley warned that the international community needed to take immediate action to prevent a food crisis in the Sahel region, noting that the UN’s food program was already over-extended and under-funded due to “19 or 20 countries in protracted conflict.”

More than 2.5 million migrants poured into the European Union in 2015-16, leading to political, social and economic friction that the bloc is still struggling with today.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Racing toward ignorance: Why are Trump & Russia all we ever hear about in the media today?

The US seems to be going down a dangerous path where a handful of voices in the mainstream media dictate what “should” matter, and events of global importance are shunned in favor of anything that involves Trump or Russia.

A recent Gallup poll noted that Americans are losing confidence in mainstream media. As technology advances, so does knowledge. We are witnessing a greater capacity to achieve global knowledge than any generation before us. As such, we are not content to study history or lose ourselves in fiction: rather, we long for current events, relevant stories, and news about the world around us. Right now. Today.

So what happens when our sources of knowledge, with all the technological advances and communications at their disposal, decide what our news should be? In the United States and Europe, media outlets such as CNN and the BBC have eyes and ears all over the world. Reporters are provided stories of victories, triumph amidst adversity, and genocidal terrorist organizations intent on eradicating entire nationalities, ethnicities, and religious people in the name of service to a “god” they think desires that.

In my time traveling in the Middle East, it took one week to learn of a small village in northern Iraq where a mere 10 farmers fought off 70 Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS)  militants to provide their families time to escape before the terrorist organization invaded their home. They were victorious and nearly every family was able to escape before IS came back. Yet, to learn of this story, I was not even privy to the vast resources of a Western news outlet, so we can only imagine what foreign reporters and correspondents are able to learn every day.

But these are exactly the stories we don’t hear.  Most mainstream media outlets with the largest audiences are no longer run by multiple companies or those with a passion to gain and spread knowledge from a variety of opinions. Rather, they are run by a select elite in the US – those with goals to manipulate, to paint a picture, and spread a narrative that their unwitting subjects must be told. In 1983, over 50 companies owned the mainstream media.  Today it is six.

Voices that stray from the desired narratives are silenced and replaced with those willing to feed into it, and at the end of the line, we become fed by a story of the world around us that is not based in an encompassing reality of multiple important issues, but instead, is centered on certain small, unimportant storylines with our emotions and opinions left as the victims.  The narratives are the stories to achieve a desired sentiment in an audience, while media “main characters” are those actors that must always be the central focus of any story today that gets its global audience. Any story – no matter how great, important, or pertinent to today’s world – that does not seemingly include the “main characters” is, therefore, not a story at all. It seems to be brushed aside, forgotten, as its place in the narrative does not fit without the main characters.

I never noticed the obvious nature of the main character in mainstream news articles, nor did I pay attention when certain stories catapulted to the top of the news headlines while others seemed to immediately fade away. Today, however, it has become impossible to search for any story outside the current main characters: Donald Trump and Russia.

These are the two main characters that must always be the top story with all other global events, policies, and stories following woefully far down the line. As a human rights attorney and specialist in international crimes and foreign policy, it is the most ridiculous show of media manipulation I’ve ever experienced.  Certainly, that’s not to state that stories of true worth and value occurring which involve Russia or President Trump should not make news.  That is not the issue. The issue is what happens when all events or matters of global importance are shielded in favor of anything that involves Trump or Russia. When it becomes impossible to ascertain the world around us without stumbling across 25 articles on the main characters, there is now a serious problem. In a world where we are at the highest peak of communication and information gathering, we have become a people content with knowing very little because we have very few options.

The purpose of this piece is not to call out the mainstream media outlets of the West, but rather to highlight the dangers in continuing down a path where the people allow a handful of voices to dictate their emotions and what “should” matter in the world.

MSM psychosis about Trump’s every move

No world leader has been afforded more media coverage in the United States than Donald Trump. Certainly, no one expected his opponents (whether domestically or abroad) to lose the US 2016 election gracefully, but the rate at which mainstream media psychosis surrounding every tweet, breath, or allegedly questionable action of Donald Trump immediately takes precedence in all main news outlets, daily. Our mainstream outlets have become so obsessed with Trump that stories of war, famine, destruction, terrorism, rape, murder, persecution and even stories of triumph and employment and success have all taken a back seat to a story about a porn star whose faltering national tour became a sensational hit because she may have had an affair with Trump in 2006, and he may have asked her to not speak about it.

North and South Korea are, for the first time since the 1950s, set to announce an official “end” to the Korean War, but in America our news wants us to know every facet of Stormy Daniels as we glorify her bravery for wanting to speak about sex with the president while her public persona skyrockets into infamy – a woman whose career has centered on making money through, with, and because of sex. I’m saddened for the country I call home because we don’t even question the process of what makes a story worth blocking out an entire news cycle for.

We no longer care about what matters most in this world or protecting those who cannot speak for themselves. Sure there are those of us who change the channel, but we have chosen either to be fed the stories blindly while our emotions are manipulated, or we blindly choose to not follow anything at all; having lost hope that we can actually gather knowledge through conventional, mainstream methods.

‘Russia meddling’: Americans told they are too stupid to incite their own opinions

The leader of Russia and all its officials have little duty to the rest of the world. Their main duty is to protect the people of Russia as well as their citizens’ interests.  (As an aside, that’s also the duty of every nation state leader.) Yet, since the election of Trump to the White House, the narrative has been that Russia’s main interests lay in the United States, its leadership, and its survival (or destruction). In America, the mainstream media audiences so enamored by that narrative began to believe that Russia has no other interest but to manipulate America’s way of life, and in 2016, its election.

Take the 2016 election story coverage and the ominous “election meddling” scandals that refused to leave the television of every CNN nightly story for at least a year.  In reality, no evidence of poll meddling or actual voter fraud ever surfaced or was even provided as probable cause. What was eventually provided was a dozen “hacker” accounts or “bots” set up to highlight political differences within the people. Now even if this was something remotely tied to a Russian government, did US news outlets attempt to conclude what was actually being presented? Stories of social clashes, violence from Black Lives Matter protests or other real local and state stories simply being posted on social media in the US, which (“experts” noted) was meant to manipulate US voters in the election.

So to be clear, the mainstream media told the American people that we were too stupid to incite our own opinions and emotions, and because we saw a few posts we were fooled into thinking we needed to vote someone else into office. Yet without any sort of reasonable analysis on the media, the story remained “look what Russia did,” “look what Trump and Russia did,” “look what Trump’s people are doing with Russia,” when the story should have been, “why have the American people allowed ourselves to be so filled with hate and animosity over social and political issues that we are incapable of reaching a civilized societal status? When did we become so easily manipulated by any story we read, no matter where that story appears?”

The more disconcerting fact of this is that what “Russia” was accused of nightly for nearly a year on every major media outlet is exactly what every major media outlet does daily in today’s news. There seem to be mainstream stories about Russia when any true expert in global policy will conclude that all recent alleged “scandals” of Russia have, in fact, been carried out simultaneously and in the past by nearly all powerful countries – in most cases, much worse stories. Certainly, this is not to exonerate Russia or any other country from any actual instance of corruption or bad faith in action. The point is much deeper than that. The question we should be asking is, “why is Russia all we ever hear about today?” rather than, “why is Russia doing so much?”

Where are the stories of persecution or the resurgence of IS, the recent dictatorial strides of multiple modern democracies looking to silence opponents? It is occurring everywhere. It merely looks different depending on where you look.

Perhaps this is one effect of the mass globalization we’ve seen in recent years coming to a tipping point. No world system founded on a basis of state sovereignty can ever expect a smooth transition to a globalized structure, because interests of the people will always need to be heard, if they are afforded the chance. There must always be a controlling hand making sure the loudest voices of the (much) larger population are being provided parallel stories to ensure smooth operations in societies throughout Europe and North America.

While “we the people” has always been a hallmark of the United States’ founding, most civilized nations contain similar mantras supporting the voices of the people to be prosperous, safe, and secure in their cultural homeland and society, free from anything and anyone that may threaten that safety or security. But our voices, our thoughts are only as informed as what we are provided. And until the mainstream takes a backseat to the truth in objective media outlets without mandatory scripts, we will be forced to search much harder to learn about our world and the issues that matter most. We must conduct extensive research to understand the underpinnings of policy and global injustices in order to grasp the knowledge our ancestors made sure we would be able to find. Perhaps, despite our technological advances, we are actually living in a time where we must learn to rely less on what the loudest sources are declaring, and venture back to a time where the people learned to work for true knowledge.

Macron backs off claim that he convinced Trump to keep troops in Syria

President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron

By Mark Moore

French President Emmanuel Macron backed off his assertion that the United States had changed its policy on Syria after the White House rejected his claim that he had persuaded President Trump to keep troops in the war-torn country, a report said Monday.

Macron said Sunday that he had told Trump that he should keep American forces in Syria for the “long term” after the president suddenly announced in a speech in Ohio last month that he wanted to pull out “very soon,” Reuters reported.

The White House late Sunday released a statement saying that while Trump wants Islamic State terrorists in the country defeated, he also wants the troops to return home.

“The U.S. mission has not changed — the president has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return.

“In addition, we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region. ”

Macron then pivoted to say he and Trump hold the same viewpoint on Syria.

“The White House is right in saying that the military engagement is against Daesh and will stop the day the war against Daesh will be over. France has the same view,” Macron said, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS.

“But yes, I am right in saying that the United States, because they decided this intervention with us, fully realized that our responsibility goes beyond the war against Daesh and that there is also a humanitarian responsibility and a responsibility to build peace over the long term,” Macron added.

France joined with Britain and the US on Saturday to launch airstrikes against Syria for Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people on April 7 in Douma, killing scores of people and injuring hundreds more.

The coalition launched a barrage of missiles in a pre-dawn raid Saturday, targeting three facilities in Syria used to develop chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, the US envoy to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that Russia may have tampered with the attack site in Douma.

“It is long overdue that this council condemns the Syrian government for its reign of chemical terror and demands international accountability for those responsible for these heinous acts,” US Ambassador Kenneth Ward said, according to Reuters.

“It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site. It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation,” he said.



Based on what constitutional authority?

Jon Rappoport | – APRIL 16, 2018

“Let’s see, US Deep State actors from intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, and the Department of State, along with US allies, played a MAJOR role in creating, funding, supplying, and sustaining ISIS, while purportedly doing everything possible to destroy ISIS. No problem. Why should there be a problem?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Trump and the Pentagon claim the strikes were based on clear evidence President Assad’s forces used chemical weapons on their own civilian citizens.

The Russians point out that international inspectors were due to investigate the chemical-weapons claims on Saturday—and their findings would have denied Assad chemical attacks took place—therefore, to prevent this embarrassment, the US-led missile attacks were launched one day earlier.

Posted at

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Evidence Required for Military Decision on Syria

Mr. President,

“We the undersigned Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity join a number of other credible experts including former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford…former UN weapons inspectors and former military officers who are strongly recommending that you obtain and review actual evidence from the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, before ordering any military action. We have long brought to light significant evidence questioning the provenance of chemical weapons indicating that rebel forces may have tried to produce and use such toxic agents in Syria.”

“The main question that arises is, ‘What motive would the Syrian government have to attack its own people when it is enjoying popular support for routing anti-government rebels? Why would it risk Western ire?’…”

Attacks and wars initiated by governments aren’t prefaced by detailed evidence made available to the people. Presenting the whole story isn’t necessary, as far as governments are concerned.

In the US, Congress goes along with the White House. The media go along with the White House.

The last time “evidence” was rolled out—“Saddam was developing WMDs, bought uranium from Niger, bought aluminum tubes for nuke weapons production”—the whole show devolved into a farce and fell apart.

Now, it’s just “trust us.”

Many Trump supporters aren’t buying the package. They believed Trump when he said the US was going to abandon empire-building and leave foreign nations alone and let them settle their own conflicts.

Now, a number of theories abound. Trump was duped by the military-industrial complex. Trump was never serious about refraining from launching military attacks. Trump is compromising now, but he has a further secret strategy in mind, a brilliant strategy against the Deep State. Trump is bowing to the Globalists, who want to continue destabilizing the Middle East. Trump is actually carrying out an Israeli (and/or Saudi) agenda. Attacking Syria is part of a US, British, and French plan involving access to oil in the region. Trump is pretending to step up his opposition to Russia (Assad’s ally), to prove he isn’t soft on Russia, to deflate the ferocious assault on him vis-à-vis the “Russia influenced the election” claim, to deflect Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation. Trump wants to improve his poll numbers, which always rise for any president in a time of war. Trump has no idea what he’s doing. And so forth and so on.

There is no will, no determination, no desire, within the US government colossus, to be responsive to the wishes of the American people, when it comes to making war. There is no felt need to explain why war is necessary, in very specific terms that can be verified or rejected. There is no need to wait until evidence is thoroughly investigated.

This is nothing new. Trump is no exception.

Since 1998, how many Americans knew about, cared, responded, or tried to investigate US Tomahawk Cruise missiles launched at Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Bosnia & Herzegovina? And these attacks don’t include the recent history of untold numbers of drone strikes.

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.” (Wex Legal Dictionary)

Presidents, of course, have wormed and weaseled their way around these strictures by calling war “police actions” or “single attacks.”

And now we have this missile attack on Syria, purportedly launched to knock out chemical-weapons facilities.

This is a classic Orwellian operation: The enemy is who we are told the enemy is, and he will remain the enemy as long as our leaders say he is.

Images sent our way are described by official voice-over and given meaning, which we are supposed to accept without question.

The “good forces” opposing the enemy in Syria are named the “rebels,” instead of ISIS terrorists our leaders helped create. This, too, we are supposed to accept.

But wait. According to The Intercept, “So while over 80 members of Congress wrote to Trump on Friday night stating that ‘engaging our military in Syria … without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,’ their action has no impact.”

Strange. Major media haven’t blasted, with big headlines, Congressional opposition to the Trump missile strike. News coverage has been urging and supporting the strike.

It gets stranger. The Intercept: “Trump almost certainly does have some purported legal justification provided to him by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel [OLC] — but no one else, including Congress, can read it.”


“The Office of Legal Counsel is often called the Supreme Court of the executive branch, providing opinions on how the president and government agencies should interpret the law.”

“We know that Trump received a top secret OLC opinion justifying the previous U.S. strike on Syria on April 6, 2017. Friday’s bombing undoubtedly relied on the same memo or one with similar reasoning.”

The US Justice Department is “its own judiciary.” And its legal justifications for green lighting military attacks are secret.

Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine?


Former long-term US Congressman and presidential candidate, Ron Paul, did much to stir up the American people with libertarian ideas and proposals, and, in the process, large numbers of Americans eventually went over to Trump’s side, believing he was the reincarnation of Paul’s positions—but with a much better reach into the heartland of the country.

Read what Paul wrote on October 2, 2017, and compare it with Trump’s present stance. Paul: “Now that the defeat of ISIS in Syria appears imminent, with the Syrian army clearing out some of the last ISIS strongholds in the east, Washington’s interventionists are searching for new excuses to maintain the illegal US military presence in the country. Their original rationale for intervention has long been exposed as another lie.”

“Remember that President Barack Obama initially involved the US military in Iraq and Syria to ‘prevent genocide’ of the Yazidis and promised the operation would not drift into US ‘boots on the ground.’ That was three years ago and the US military became steadily more involved while Congress continued to dodge its Constitutional obligations. The US even built military bases in Syria despite having no permission to do so! Imagine if Syria started building military bases here in the US against our wishes.”

“After six years of war the Syrian government has nearly defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda and the US-backed ‘moderates’ [‘rebels’] turned out to be either Islamist extremists or Kurdish soldiers for hire. According to a recent report, the US has shipped two billion dollars worth of weapons to fighters in Syria via eastern Europe. Much of these weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS directly, or indirectly through ‘moderates’ taking their weapons with them while joining ISIS or al-Qaeda.”

“’Assad must go’,” proclaimed President Obama back in 2011, as he claimed that the Syrian leader was committing genocide against his own people and that regime change was the only way to save Syrians. Then earlier this year, when eastern Aleppo was about to be liberated by the Syrian government, the neocons warned that Assad would move in and kill all the inhabitants. They warned that the population of eastern Aleppo would flee from the Syrian army. But something very different happened. According to the UN’s International Organization for Migration, 600,000 refugees returned to Syria by August. Half of the returnees went back to Aleppo, where we were told Assad was waiting to kill them.”

“What happened? The neocons and ‘humanitarian interventionists’ lied. Just as they lied about Libya, Iraq, and so on.”

If Trump is sounding like Ron Paul on the issue of Syria, an elephant is a space ship.

This article first appeared at

Another Perspective Syria: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time

See the source image
By Doug Bandow

(THE GLOBALISTS WON TODAY) – Goal of Syria strikes was to prevent chemical watchdog’s fact-finding mission in Douma

The US and its allies attacked Syria in order to hamper the work of the OPCW inspectors, investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

The “intimidation act” by the US, UK, and France was carried out “under an absolutely far-fetched pretext of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian authorities in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7,” the ministry said in a statement.

The airstrikes were conducted hours before inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were to start their fact-finding mission at the site. “There’s every reason to believe that the purpose of the attack on Syria was to obstruct the work of the OPCW inspectors,” the statement read.

Moscow pointed out that the Western allies ignored evidenceprovided by Syria and Russia that the alleged chemical attack was actually staged in a “cynical” manner.

“It’s becoming absolutely clear that those in the West, who are hiding behind the humanitarian rhetoric and trying to justify their military presence in Syria with the need of defeating the jihadists, are on the same side as them [the terrorists], working towards dismembering the country,” the Foreign Ministry said. It added that such conclusions are also backed by the unwillingness of the US and its allies to participate in the reconstruction or the areas liberated by the Syrian government.

The ministry also pointed out that the strikes were carried out when the Syrian troops’s offensive  against IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS], Jabhat al-Nusra, and other terrorist groups was successful. “All facts point to the desire of the US and its allies to provide the radicals and extremists with an opportunity to gather their breath, restore their ranks, drag out the bloodshed on Syrian soil and thereby complicate the political settlement,” the ministry said.
Russia has “strongly condemned” the Western missile strikes against Syria, slamming them as “a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law, [and] an unjustified infringement of the sovereignty of the country.”

Early on Saturday, Washington and its allies unleashed more than 100 missiles on civilian and military facilities in Syria in response to an alleged gas attack in Douma that has been widely blamed on Bashar Assad’s government. Syrian air defense systems intercepted 71 cruise missiles and air-surface missiles fired by the Western coalition, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that none of its own air defense units were involved in repelling the attack.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!