Russia Warns Trump Not To Start A Fight With North Korea

Russia and the US are not going to nuclear war.

China will kill Kim eventually if he keeps his nonsense up.

 

Not sure "cuddling up" applies but certainly the Sauds are an important factor in the region and should be included in any talks.

 

I would certainly prefer that more of the democracies do this 'policing', especially those in Europe, but they contribute very little. It's a good thing Trump got on their tails. What happens at the end of that road?

What's sodomizing the lower classes are the tax policies and the bureaucracies - all of them. That's why the middle class is shrinking or stagnant. BHO spent $10 TRILLION of borrowed money over his eight years and few know where it went. Certainly not on infrastructure. Robert Menendez is only the beginning but corruption s so widespread that it will take years to uncover, and a compliant MSM only makes it worse. It's so bad that we have to ask whether leaders of the MSM are on the take as well. They'll whip up scandals that go nowhere in order to distract attention from the real corruption going on among them.

Al Qaeda was secondary to getting rid of Saddam. Recall that Iraq was all rather peaceful in 2011 when, against all or most military advice, BHO decided to pull the troops. In that tear, 2011, there were 54 US deaths in Iraq, from ALL sources. That's a weekend in Chicago. When they left a bloodbath soon followed and the carnage continues. It is spreading to Western Europe now as well. It was so foolish to do that we have to ask if it was ideological and deliberate.

It's not nonsense at all.

The rise of ISIS was the result of pulling the military out of the region, and much fault for this lies with Europe as well. They are now suffering most directly from their foolish decisions and are now compounding them.

Rely on the US MSM for nothing.

 

Saud is the biggest supporter of Terrorism on the planet .. by far. It is the root ideology of the Islamist Jihadists. Taliban, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, various Salafi groups, ISIS and numerous others in Pakistan, India and around the globe.

Saud has been exporting this extremist ideology all over the planet for decades. They have been supporting and arming these groups.

It is not like this is some big secret although you would think it was given the MSM coverage. We have been fighting in a war in Yemen for over 2 years. A war where there has been massive human rights abuses by "our side". How much coverage of the war in Yemen do we get... where is the reporters on the front lines reporting on what is happening ? When you do get reporting its all "Iran supports the other side and Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism false narrative.

Al Qaeda is in Yemen ... an other Islamist Jihadists of the same ilk. Question ... who's side is Al Qaeda on ? Answer - "our side".
Same as was the case in Syria.

 

The above is the MSM false narrative - including the frontline documentary which is good until 2011, at which point it goes completely into apology mode.

The rise if ISIS did not happen in Iraq. While it is true that many fighters (Sunni Islamist Jihadists - Al Qaeda in Iraq and so on) went from Iraq into Syria - leaving US troops in Iraq would not have prevented this from happening ... and nor did it prevent the tens of thousands of foreign Islamist Jihadists from pouring into Syria.

What leaving the troops in Iraq might have done was to stop ISIS from gaining a foothold in Iraq. The rise of ISIS happened in Syria from late 2011 to 2014. ISIS was born out of various Islamist groups - Salafist, MB, Al Nusra, and other Islamist groups. The declared an Islamic State in 2013 and went into Iraq in 2014.

ISIS was already massive and controlled much of Syria prior to going into Iraq

 

This is old news chief, I popped this wtf when we the US were covertly supporting the " rebels" aka Islamist head chopper Jihadist with mainly cash via the CIA.... But the time line is clear. Russia became involved, Assad starting winning and so instead of admitting we got outplayed.. The US had those groups rename themselves to western media friendly names. Then we began openly supporting them with air support, weapons, everything. Our goals changed from ousting Assad to forcing some type of negotiation to salvage at least some of our investment.

Then the Western media as you pointed out covered it up. Or more than that just kept pounding anti Assad rhetoric and mentioned head choppers as little as possible.

I've supported Russia and Assad since the Arab Spring that was nothing but a few dozen dissenters in Syria dealt with harshly in Syria. KSA, qatar and US saw their chance and started pumping in big money and head choppers to try and take over the country. Or rather to throw it into complete chaos like Libya so it could be chopped up into pieces.

100,s of thousands dead, millions displaced, a country of monolithic history destroyed and some few years later here we sit.

Tons of threads with links and timelines to support that the US is a main cause of all of it.

 

I believe that but those actions are of long term benefit and will take years if ever to bear any fruit in as you say bring NK to heel.

 

What? OK this what an opinion looks like when in denial. Iraq? Untold dead, none saved. Invaded under false pretext. Proven. Libya invaded under false pretext untold dead, none saved unless you count the refugees the chieftains sell in the resurrected slave market as saved. Afghanistan? Invaded under pretext to stop another 9/11. Untold dead, none saved. But we didn't invade KSA? The country that founded all modern branches of Islamist and more than half the 9/11 terrorists were KSA citizens. Worst of all Syria with over half a million dead, 12 million displaced and... None saved.

Ooh and let's not forget trillions of American tax dollars spent to feed the military complex to run amok over there too.

Get outtaaaa here with the US saved lives in the ME.. I mean.. Hahaha

 

LOL. Yeah, it was so absurd. I think anyone who believes what he said flunked basic math. If not, then one wonders where he gets his info from. Comic books?

 

There's two scenarios at this point.

1. China does more than do drills on the border of NK and cuts off all trade with NK. The small amount of trade done with Russia isn't enough. That might work. Might not. Remember KJU has no problem letting millions of his people die of starvation.

2. We blow NK up.

It's really that simple. It's just a question of how long the dance will go on before the music stops. When the music stops....

 

It's only long term if Washington intervenes with more provocations. The first thing in Russia's road map, and which China and Germany agreed with, was that all provocations had to stop. The road map though doesn't fit in with Washington's geo political plans on encircling Russia and China with nukes, so it's probably why the US wouldn't accept it.

Right now Washington wants to put sanctions on any nation that trades with N. Korea, which is probably a response to hurt Russia's endeavors on uniting the two Korea's with trade, as well as having a gas pipe line and the Russian railroad run through N. Korea to the South.

I'm not pulling these things out of my head because in Syria, Lavrov was running around for years trying to get the 100 plus different factions together with Assad... and he was successful at it. When the US joined the peace talks and Lavrov and Kerry would come to an agreement, Obama would destroy it. Later on Lavrov said that Kerry was a good man, but Obama was evil.

 

I agree on Syria that was a geopolitical gambit played by Obama. You can't tie these two together. My opinions on Syria are clear.

There is nothing you have to support the insane opinion that we the United States are or ever have been the aggressors with KJU and NK. Even more paranoid is that we had any geopolitical motivations nuclear wise in regards to the Koreas recently. Totally unfounded rubbish.

Why? For the simple fact it's KJU who non stop has been shooting ballistic missiles out his arse every chance he gets, testing nukes, and attaching nukes too missiles and threatening directly the lives of millions of Americans.

We have been reacting in a very restrained manner to a vocalized, materialized, clear and present danger to our safety and sovereignity

And fk what Germany thinks. Merkel socialist in chief can bite me. Non factor. She has her own problems.

Your narrative is not based on fact and we know it. Your opinion is purely what's good for Russia or to make it sound like they are real players in this and they are not. 5 years ago yes these things could have worked. You keep espousing this narrative because your a Russian propagandist and bottom line Russia doesn't want to deal with the headache of dealing with refugees afterwards if they let them in at all.

My opinion is unbiased. That's why you've seen me throw my countries decisions and actions in the ME under the bus over and over. North Korea? KJU? That nucleur and missile capability? I do not want him to have it. Nor does my government.

KJU will not stop, its proven. China acts or. We go. To hell what Russia or anyone else thinks.

 

Kim is not a threat to China, Washington is, so why would China kill someone who it doesn't fear in order to give more power to the one it does fear? That's totally illogical.

But then again everything that's being written about N. Korea is illogical because sanctions and pressure only builds up determination and hatred. Either the ones in Washington are idiots, or they want friction between the Korea's for their own geo political ambitions... I guess they feel that if it leads to war, who cares since it's only Koreans who will die.

 

That logic is illformed. The last thing the Chinese want is twenty million plus North Korean pouring across the Yalu into Red China because of war.

China is going to kill Kim if necessary to prevent war.

 

In fact I never hear this from the MSM. They were very supportive of BHO and seldom questioned his decisions.

There is no doubt that the US military had control in Iraq and there is no reason to believe that would have changed, had they remained. Now many thousands of people have died in the aftermath and Western Europe, because of their continued inept policies, has suffered from this impact. That suffering will continue to grow and escalate.

The Coalition, led by the US, had control in the Central Middle East and now they have none anywhere. This ineptitude, and serving politics over human lives, has created international problems which will last for decades.

 

Why is the US a threat to China? And what 'geo political ambitions' are you referring to?

 

It's not, we are just economic rivals which is a good thing. We are not going to go to war, the media simply over blows it all.

From what I can see, I agree completely with what China said. We should not attack NK, but if NK does attack us, China said they are more than fine that we retaliate by wiping the floor with their country.

I have made my stance clear that I think acting first will create so much negative "press" to the US that more lives would be effected negatively in doing so than in whatever initial attack Kim would throw at us.

 

Agreed ... I have been watching this conflict since the protest movement (before armed insurrection). A fellow I know went to Syria to see his folks (he had not been back in 20 years) and while there he set up a chicken farm as an investment.

When he came back I had a convo with him over a few drinks and asked him how things were over there. He said the people did not like Assad much but, they disliked the radical extremists a whole lot more. He then added that the Christians were particularly terrified.

Well talk about insight into the future ... a number of months later the Salafi (Saudi inspired ideology) extremists started killing christian's and telling them to either join the protest movement or leave the country.

This was "prior" to armed insurrection. The extremists had taken over the protest movement.

This is a great article from that time period showing what was happening. http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

The whole call to Jihad in Syria was that the Islamist Rebel Opposition wanted strict sharia theocracy to be the law of the land/political system. They hate "secularism" and individual rights and freedoms. They hate anyone who does not share their extremist beliefs which includes Muslims ! ( Part of the school curriculum in the land of El Saud teaches kids to hate Christians and Jews to this day)

The people fight for Assad because they want to keep their individual rights and freedoms. Assad has Christian Generals in his army and over 50% of the standing army is Sunni. (Isn't Assad supposed to be fighting the Sunni and hate them as per the false MSM narrative ?)

The people want to keep their freedoms. They do not want women to have to ask a man to be educated. They do not stone adulterers. There is drinking alcohol and dancing and music in bars. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suits. There is freedom of religion including Christian Churches. Syria is does not have strict Sharia and they are a secular system .... and the Islamist hates this.

The DIA's own assessment in 2012, shortly after armed insurgency broke out, was that the rebels were all Islamist Extremists. Well no shart sherlock.

Yet ... we supported them anyway. 10 years after 911 and we are arming Al Qaeda with sophisticated US military technology (including shoulder launched surface to air missiles - perfect for taking out civilian airliners).

Lovely. Just lovely.

 

This is not about "the US is Evil". This is about the act that the Establishment international financiers are now in control of US foreign policy. (along with the MSM, defense contractors, banks and and so on).

Here is the declassified DIA assessment from 2012 (Last time I checked the DIA was not communist propaganda)

https://levantreport.com/tag/robert-ford/

In addition you have numerous NYT articles talking about how there were no moderates in the Rebel Opposition. That they were all Islamists and all wanted Strict Sharia to be the law of the land in Syria. This was the call to Jihad .. not hatred for Assad's bad deeds and this was NOT a civil war. It was an armed insurgency supported by major nation states.

How else do you think a group of rebels manages to fight a war lasting many years against a nation state ? With a whole lot of help ... that's how.

So .. even early on, prior to ISIS existing, the rebel opposition was made up of primarily Islamist extremists. The people of Syria were fighting against these extremists (fighting for Assad) because they wanted to keep individual rights and freedoms.

Read this article: This is prior to armed insurrection... 4 years prior to the Obama "moderate rebel lie" being necessary. Extremists had taken over the protest movement and killing Christians and/or telling them to join the protest movement or leave the country.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

Moderates ? Not according to Biden.

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

MSM response ? "Silence" The MSM already knew that Obama "moderate rebel lie/false narrative" was just that. The media had previously reported that there were no moderate rebels.

What happened was that the dog got off it's leash. In 2014 ISIS went into Iraq.
Now you had the US supporting ISIS in Syria but fighting them in Iraq. This necessitated the Moderate Rebel Lie. At this point the two main forces in Syria were Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and ISIS.

Even if there were some moderate groups (which no one was able to fine except in the hotels and boardrooms) supporting these groups only serves to support Al Qaeda and ISIS. Assad's people were the one's fighting these Islamist extremists so attacking Assad's army is helping Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The fact of the matter is that support was going directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Here is Rand Paul on CNN's Sunday morning show "State of the Union"

Here we have a well known Congressman saying we are arming "Al QAEDA".
You know ... the folks that did 911. Bush said "we are not only going after the terrorists but he supporters of terrorism" ... what changed ? Why did Obama repeal the legislation barring support of terrorist groups in 2013 ?

Is this not "news " ... apparently not... at least not part of "all the news that is fit to print" It is the kind of news that gets journalists fired. Phil Donahue spoke out against the Iraq war and has never worked since. Such examples go a long way in quieting those who speak "the unspeakable" in the future.

MSM response ? Silence

Part of the Benghazi affair was the shipping of arms from Libya to Syria. Paul grilled Hillary on this during the Benghazi hearings. Silence.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/virgin...ad-for-saving-the-lives-of-christians/5384338

The whole article is worth a read.

I have a gazillion other links ... God forbid we go to sources outside the US.

This is not so much about the policy of using Al Qaeda and ISIS to fight a proxy war and the fact that our foreign policy is run by the Establishment Oligarchs for economic purposes (not because Assad or Gaddafi were bad guys)

My issue is the massive media cover up. Some of the links I had from youtube have been removed. One showing a commander of the fictitious "FSA false narrative" in a video with ISIS fighters after they took over an air base giving a heart warming speech. Later he refers to Al Nusra as brothers, part of the so called "moderate" FSA. The FSA was Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and ISIS for the most part.

This is detailed in the "Levant" link where Robert Ford is shown with this FSA commander.

Again ... sometimes we do bad stuff (claiming it is for good reasons but what ever). This is not my point.

My point is about the massive MSM cover up. This is just one example of our Fake news Central ... and I am not referring to Trump's use of the term.

Gov'ts do bad stuff sometimes ... Got it but, it is when the media becomes a puppet of the State that the threat of totalitarianism looms large.

 

The Monitor article is from May, 2011 and the troops left the following December. Had BHO not given that order the entire Middle East would likely have remained as secure as it was at that time and Western Europe not effected as they are now.

 

Iraq likely would have been more secure but, not Syria ... as the troops were not in Syria.

Further, security in Syria (and probably not in Iraq) is not the game plan.

 

Right, but just having troops in the area would have had a solid impact on the entire region. Perhaps Libya would have remained secure also.

 

I do not think so. I don't see how Troops in Syria can have do anything about the conflict in Syria. LIbya is way far away. It is not like we did not have troops at bases around the region and they had no effect.

Regardless ... We did not want to keep Syria and Libya secure. Our policy was one of destabilization. It does not make sense to claim that our troops would have secured Syria against the Islamist Jihadists (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Islamic Front), the core of the rebel opposition when we were arming and supporting the rebel opposition.

 

Same person who told me rain is wet.

​