Hillary Clinton’s machine of war and destruction

By Julio Severo

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton was, in the U.S. presidential election in 2016, the candidate of Wall Street, which is the backbone of the American financial system. She was also the favorite candidate of the largest U.S. capitalist companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Google, HP, etc. Even more dangerous, though, is that she was the candidate of the U.S. military industrial complex. The idea that she was bad for corporate issues, but good for U.S. national security, has no basis. Her foreign policy experience has been to support wars and more wars, according to the directions of the U.S. national security elites.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped trigger two major financial crises (1999-2000 and 2005-8). In the 1990s, they removed government restrictions for businessmen who financed their political campaigns, thus causing financial manipulation, financial fraud and eventually financial crisis. In the process, they won elections and got mighty rich.

However, Hillary’s connections to the U.S. military complex are scarier. Many believe that only Republicans are neocons and that Democrats only seek to stop Republican warmongers. This is not true. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have warlike neocons members. But they also have a minority of cautious realistic members who do not want the U.S. involved in endless wars. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose history of favoring American military adventures explains many of today’s military crises that threaten U.S. security.

Just as Bill Clinton’s presidency paved the way for financial crises that benefited his supportive businessmen, so did it pave the way for endless wars. On October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Law which made it official U.S. policy to support “regime change” (a nice term with a nefarious meaning: to overthrow a government) in Iraqi.

Since Clinton, it was already the goal of the U.S. government to remove Saddam Hussein and establish a “democratic” government, as if it were possible to democratize an Islamic nation. Saudi Arabia, which is the largest Islamic ally of the United States, has never been democratic. Even so, the U.S. never bothered to invade it to democratize it.

The case of Saudi Arabia is serious: while in Iraq the Bible was allowed, there were Christian churches and Saddam protected Christians, in Saudi Arabia the Bible is banned, there is no Christian church and Saudis kill Christians.

It seems that the only reason for the invasion of Iraq was that this nation was not allied with the US, but with Russia.

Many people think that President George W. Bush’s attitude of invading Iraq was just his initiative and decision. No. Long before Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, with the excuse that Iraq was behind the 2001 terrorist attack on New York, Bush was already under Bill Clinton’s policy to topple Saddam.

Today, it is obvious that who was behind this attack was Saudi Arabia. Even so, the U.S. never wanted to invade it, either for revenge or to democratize it. Saudi dictators have always enjoyed the close friendship of Republican and Democrat presidents. Today, the greatest friend and ally of the Saudi Islamic dictatorship is Donald Trump.

In 2003, Hillary was a senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and essentially created ISIS.

Before the American invasion, Iraq had a Christian community of more than 2 million people. Today, it is less than 400,000 and continues to decline.

Following the Iraq Liberation Act, the Kosovo War took place in 1999, in which Bill Clinton used NATO to bomb Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, an Orthodox Christian country allied with Russia, thus creating Kosovo, a Muslim enclave that now is an important Islamic smuggling ground for arms and human beings in Europe. Hillary confessed to journalist Lucinda Frank that it was she who had urged her husband Bill to make bombings on Serbian Christians.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic and disastrous in modern American history. She is a staunch defender of the powerful U.S. military industrial complex, helping to create military disasters in several countries, including Libya and Syria.

Hillary is heavily criticized for the deaths of American diplomats in Benghazi, but her relentless actions to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi through NATO bombings were by far the biggest disaster. Hillary used NATO to overthrow the Libyan government in violation of international law only to meet the wishes of Saudi Arabia. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war and Islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, spread in Libya and then to North Africa, arriving at Syria. Gaddafi’s overthrow also left Libya free for millions of African Muslims to go though and invade Europe. The Libyan disaster provoked war in Mali, supplied arms to the Islamic group Boko Haram, which has raped and killed thousands of Christians in Nigeria, and strengthened ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

Then Hillary took aim at Syria. With CIA support, which provided weapons and training for Islamic rebels, Hillary wanted to oust Syrian President Bashir al-Assad and said that this would be a quick, costless and successful move. In August 2011, Hillary led the U.S. to disaster with her statement that Assad should “get out of the way,” with the backing of secret CIA operations.

Seven years later, no country in the world is more devastated by endless war than Syria, with hundreds of thousands of dead, including Christians. More than 10 million Syrians have been displaced, and refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or undermining Europe’s political stability. Those who do not flee become victims of ISIS or U.S.-backed Islamic rebel groups. In the chaos created by the CIA and Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, using Syrian territory as the base for Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide.

The list of Hillary’s manipulations and provocations of wars goes on. She has always supported the expansion of NATO, including in Ukraine and Georgia, defying all common sense. She violated post-Cold War agreements signed in Europe in 1991, leading to violent defensive reactions from Russia in Georgia and Ukraine. As a senator in 2008, Hilary was a sponsor of the 2008-SR439 Act, which calls for the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.

She wanted to become president of the United States to continue her project of wars and more wars. The biggest individual financier of her presidential campaign was the U.S. leftist billionaire George Soros, the “father” of the Ukrainian revolution.

Republican neocons are not against the wars Bill and Hillary Clinton provoked. They say that if they were in their place, they would do exactly the same wars, but without the disasters that appeared. Really?

The U.S. Founders always opposed U.S. military involvement abroad.

But today, both among Republicans and Democrats, there are warmongers. So in the last U.S. election, prominent Republicans said they preferred to vote for Hillary because they saw her as a legitimate neocon. For them, an anti-war Republican candidate was inconceivable.

Current U.S. President Donald Trump caused surprise, because he did not fulfill his promises contrary to Hillary’s warmongering.

During the election, Trump showed an anti-neocon policy line, contrary to unnecessary American military interventions in other nations. He also opposed the expansion of NATO.

Today, in matters of foreign policy, he imitates neocon politics and wants to strengthen NATO. He’s doing exactly what Hillary would have done.

Hillary and the neocons wanted an alliance of Islamic terrorism against Russia. So, in his election campaign Trump said that who founded ISIS was Obama and the co-founder, in Trump’s own words, was “croocked Hillary Clinton.” ISIS, which was founded by Obama and Hillary with Saudi assistance, is the largest genocide machine for Christians today.

Trump’s campaign speech clearly wanted an alliance with Russia, which is the world’s largest orthodox Christian nation, against global Islamic terrorism, which is sponsored by Saudi Arabia.

However, Trump failed to live up to his speech. He eventually signed with Saudi Arabia the biggest military deal in U.S. history, selling the Saudis at once 110 billion dollars in arms.

In the end, Trump became a great ally of Saudi Arabia, beating Obama and Hillary, who were bought by the Saudis.

Trump’s move to Hillary 2 was possible because whenever Trump tried to get close to Russia for an alliance against Islamic terrorism, criminal leaks weakened his administration, until all Trump’s pro-Russian advisers were overthrown and Trump had to choose anti-Russia advisers to please the neocons.

The only striking difference today between Hillary and Trump is that Trump has a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he follows the pattern of previous presidents. So it was with Bush, who also had a relatively pro-family domestic policy. But in foreign policy, he followed the pattern of the previous presidents…

During his campaign, Trump clearly condemned Hillary for her interventions in Syria, including supporting the Islamic rebels. Today, as president, Trump gives the same support to Hillary’s and Obama’s Islamic rebels.

No one did more to provoke the Cold War with Russia than Hillary did, with her close alliance with the Saudi terrorists. Trump, who seemed to be in a better position to destroy the U.S. alliance with the Saudis and form an unprecedented alliance with Russia against Islamic terrorism, eventually became, in foreign policy, a mere Hillary 2 or Bush 2.

Hillary’s machine of war and destruction is the same machine led in the past by Bush and others. And today, unfortunately, led by Trump.

Everyone exploit the feelings of the American people, including evangelicals, who have been trained to confuse patriotism with aggressive military interventions abroad. Patriotism in the U.S. today reflects often mere neocons sentiments.

It does not matter, then, whether a right-wing Republican or leftist Democrat becomes U.S. president. It does not matter if it’s Hillary, Bush or Trump. In the end, the winners in foreign policy are the neocons and the U.S. military industrial complex. Another winner is Saudi Arabia, creator of ISIS and the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world.

Who loses, as ever, are the Christian victims, who suffer in the wake of U.S. military interventions and Saudi Islamic interventions. That is the price of U.S. foreign-affair neocon policy.

I’m glad Hillary did not become U.S. president. But I’m not happy that Trump is imitating her foreign policy in the service of neocon militarism.

With information from Huffington Post and WND (WorldNetDaily).

Portuguese version of this article: A máquina de guerra e destruição de Hillary Clinton

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading on Hillary Clinton:

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

Methodist Hillary Clinton Defends Israel because of Shared Socialist Values

Hillary Clinton: America should “empathize” and “show respect” to her enemies

Recommended Reading on Neocons:

Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

Ronald Reagan: A Christian Example against Communism

Islamic and Christian Syrian Reaction to Trump’s Airstrike over a Suspicious Chemical Attack

Why Is Trump Helping Obama’s Islamists in Syria?

Fall of anti-neocon advisers hinders Trump from pursuing his promised focus of partnership with Russia against Islamic terror; new neocon advisers urge the old, traditional focus against Russia

Bloody Money: Saudi Arabia Conquers Trump

Swamp’s Neocon Crocodiles Want Trump to Continue Obama’s War in Syria

What Is Neoconservatism? Who are the Neocons?

Pro-Family Warmongers, Pro-Sodomy Neocons and Pro-Sodomy Non-Neocons: What Is Worse for Christians?

By Julio Severo

I was watching Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, on the left-wing CNN (https://youtu.be/_2-ycehCnuM) wisely answering questions as the host pressed him to condemn Russian intervention in Syria. For her, this intervention was responsible for massacres, but she never mentioned that Russia was fighting Muslim rebels funded, trained and armed by the Obama administration. She never mentioned that before the Russian intervention, these rebels were torturing, raping and slaughtering Christians. She never mentioned that the real objective of the Obama intervention in Syria, especially through the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton, was never to fight ISIS, but help rebels to overthrow the Syrian President Assad, who is supported by Russia.

Despite the psychological pressure, Graham did not condemn Russia.

The fact is, with Hillary, the U.S. State Department was a war machine making wars against Christians in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. There is evidence that the State Secretary Clinton created and armed ISIS, which slaughtered thousands of Christians. The U.S. created a terrible mess in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan and in Syria.

Also, while Muslims have represented a clear majority of immigrants being welcome and relocated in the U.S. by the State Department, Christians victims account for less than 5 per cent.

Other war fomented by the Obama State Department was the culture war on behalf of the homosexual agenda. It funded and trained homosexual activists around the world. It actively and peremptorily promoted their interests, including by naming the first global envoy for the homosexual agenda.

Hillary was a pro-sodomy neocon at the State Department.

What to expect from a Trump State Secretary? Firstly, consistency with his discourse in the campaign confronting neocons, known for their partnerships with Islamic terror against Russia, and for their openness to Islamic, not Christian, immigrants.

When Trump was considering Mitt Romney for State Secretary, it was hard not to think that the spirit of Hillary would not be continuing her mission through him, because under former Governor Romney Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize homosexual “marriage.” Besides, he wanted to confront Russia in Syria and Ukraine, just as Obama was doing and just as Hillary wanted to do in her dream of a presidency.

Then Trump chose Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, for State Secretary. Tillerson has a history of good relations with Putin and Russia, but not with ISIS. And he does not seem to want wars, but good relations. This is very good sign.

Different from Hillary, who was killing Christians in Syria through Muslim rebels and ISIS and in Iraq through ISIS, Tillerson seems to understand that there is no point in supporting such unfair war and chastise Russia for its pro-Christian involvement.

Different from Hillary and Obama, hopefully Tillerson may understand that persecuted Christians, not Muslims, should be given priority for immigration.

Yet, there is a concern. Tillerson was a board member of Boy Scouts and approved its infamous decision to allow gay scout leaders. This equals him to Hillary.

However, what if Trump chose Ted Cruz? Cruz’s pro-family and pro-Israel stances are excellent. In foreign policy, he would not use the State Department to promote the homosexual agenda. But regarding Russia, he and neocons like Marco Rubio equal to Hillary: Cruz wanted a confrontation with Russia in Syria and Ukraine over Crimea, a region traditionally Russian for hundreds of years and which Russia has repossessed in 2014. His policy would be a continuation of the Hillary policy.

So, all the choices are hard. Yet, while Hillary and the Obama administration mocked and antagonized the Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to children and eventually imposed sanctions against Russia by using as an excuse the Crimea repossession, Tillerson has spoken out against such sanctions.

If he were so fixated on the gay agenda as Obama and Hillary are, he would probably speak out on behalf of such sanctions.

How to assess the differences? Christians like Ted Cruz are very good in defending life and family. They deserve to be commended for their pro-family efforts. But their neocon efforts to fight Russia while Russia fights ISIS and helps Christians in the Middle East put them on par with Hillary, whose anti-Russian policies were anti-Christian and pro-ISIS and pro-Islamic rebels.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and others are pro-family warmongers. Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria and other nations would barely have some hope of being helped by their policies, and their pro-family views would be helpful only to pro-family Christians outside of zones of Islamic wars.

Romney would be a continuation of Hillary, with no benefit to pro-family Christians in the U.S. and Christians persecuted by Muslims in other nations.

Tillerson does not seem to be a warmonger. He has no history of wars, but of friendships and deals. This is real change, because the State Department has had too many warmongers for too long.

Tillerson would be perfect if he were a pro-family Christian against the gay agenda — as Ted Cruz would prefect if he were not warmonger and confrontational in a time Russia is looking for peace and partnership against the Islamic terror. Russia has the exact wish Trump showed in his campaign.

In fact, Trump said last week that only stupid people fools would see good ties with Russia as bad. This is in consistency with his campaign and with the history of Tillerson.

If Tillerson were a homosexualist militant, there would be a confrontation between him and Putin, because while he approved gay scout masters to teach homosexual propaganda to children, Putin has approved a ban against such propaganda.

As Trump, Tillerson is open to the gay agenda, but both, different from Hillary and Obama, are open to dialogue.

Yet, when assessing between pro-family warmongers, pro-sodomy neocons and pro-sodomy non-neocons, what is important? The lives of Christians persecuted by Muslims in Syria are as important as the lives of unborn babies defended by good pro-family Christians.

Any State Secretary willing to support the Russian efforts, or at least not interfere negatively as Obama and Hillary did, in Syria is helping save lives, especially Christians victimized by ISIS. In this respect, Tillerson seems to be the only hope for the State Department to stop its pro-Islamic meddling against Christians in Syria.

I hope to be right: Tillerson does not seem a neocon.

Portuguese version of this article: Belicistas pró-família, neocons pró-sodomia e não-neocons pró-sodomia: o que é pior para os cristãos?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Christians Are the Most Persecuted Religious Group in the World

Christians’ Love of the Warfare State Is Killing Other Christians

Christian Persecution Follows US, UK and France in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

Immigration: A Weapon of Mass Cultural Destruction in Liberal Hands

Obama Abuses Russia, Which Does Not Repay in Kind

Trump Picks Exxon Mobil’s Tillerson as Secretary of State and Faces Fierce Opposition from Neocons from Left and Right

What Is Neoconservatism (Neocon)?

Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO

Shifting U.S. policy to right, Trump chooses a pro-lifer and an anti-Islam, pro-Russian adviser

Obama Using Marxist Experience to promote Muslim Expansion

Ben Barrack

Commentary by Julio Severo: The source for today’s article is the personal website of Walid Shoeat, whom I knew firstly through WorldNetDaily, in the article “Evangelicals for Hamas!” Later, when I wrote my article about the Palestinian Liberation Theology, Shoebat himself provided me with essential information. My article is this: “Palestinian Messengers: How Christ and Christians Are Used for the Palestinian Cause.” With this introduction, I can only say that the following text, drawn from the Shoebat website, is extremely relevant and should be spread to all who want to understand the roots of the modern Islamic terror:

There are several debates when it comes to Barack Obama. One has to do with whether he is more Marxist or more Muslim. The answer may involve his usage of one to promote the elevation of the other. Perhaps there is no clear-cut answer but Obama’s continued reliance on Zbigniew Brzezinski as one of his most trusted foreign policy adivsers may help indicate which ideology he ultimately reveres most.

When it came to the U.S. support of the Mujahideen to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan often gets the lion’s share of credit/blame but it was Brzezinski who – in the later years of the Carter administration – advocated for and helped implement that very strategy as Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland and watched the Russians and Nazis invade his home country from where his father was stationed in Canada. This is believed to have contributed very strongly to his hawkish stance when it came to the 20th Century Soviets. While he was National Security Advisor for Carter’s entire term, it was Brzezinski who advocated aggressive, covert action be taken against the Soviets by supporting the Mujahideen (Taliban) with weapons.

In 1998, Brzezinski gave an interview to Le Nouvel Observateur, a French Weekly Magazine and was surprisingly candid:

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

In a video (http://youtu.be/pErfG5ki8D8) from 1979 that purports to show Brzezinski speaking with Mujahideen fighters, he can be heard telling them that God is with them:

Brzezinski clearly miscalculated and underestimated the reach and aspirations of Islam in 1979 and in 1998. Does he still?

Though Brzezinski rightly expressed concerns that the ‘Arab Spring’ could turn into the ‘Arab Winter’, he essentially advocated a repeat of his 1979 Afghanistan strategy in Libya, saying about the prospect of removing Muammar Gadhafi:

“I concluded that, if we didn’t act it would be worse.”

How’s that working out? After Gadhafi was overthrown, four Americans were murdered in Benghazi and the U.S. abandoned its embassy in Tripoli. Those of us with much less worldly experience knew it was a bad idea. How and why would Brzezinski get it so wrong?

Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Senator John McCain – who referred to the Mujahideen in Libya as his “heroes” – expressed tremendous excitement in 2011 at the prospect of the Arab Spring expanding into Russia and China. Check out what he said at the 2011 U.S.-Islamic World Forum: http://youtu.be/rFbxWHs8vYM

Brzezinski has a history of supporting Islamic fundamentalists over Russia. His reason for doing so in 1979 – based on his 1998 interview – is that the Soviet empire was a greater threat than “some stirred-up Moslems”. Indications are that he may still hold this view. Forget whether his position is right or wrong and consider what it says about Obama’s position – Muslim over Russian.

In 1997, Brzezinski wrote a book entitled, the Grand Chessboard. An excerpt from the description reads as follows:

Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America’s supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.

Over the years, Brzezinski sided with the Muslim Chechens against the Russians and pressed the Clinton administration to be more aggressive in helping the Muslims in Bosnia.

Much has changed since 1997 but Brzezinski’s anti-Russian streak is still firmly in place. When Russia invaded Crimea, Brzezinski was extremely critical of the move, writing in an op-ed:

Putin’s thuggish tactics in seizing Crimea offer some hints regarding his planning. He knew in advance that his thinly camouflaged invasion would meet with popular support from the Russian majority in Crimea. He was not sure how the thin and light Ukrainian military units stationed there would react, so he went in masked like a Mafia gangster.

Brzezinski doesn’t seem to talk like that about Turkey or Erdogan.

In 1998, Brzezinski wrote, “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire” while arguing for expanding NATO to include Ukraine. As Shoebat.com has reported, one of the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Crimea has been a deadline being set by Putin for all Islamic texts to be turned over.

There is clearly a fixation on the part of Brzezinski that controlling Eurasia is key to U.S. dominance. However, what he’s clearly been missing is that Turkey is the country that has been seeking Eurasian dominance while NATO countries continue to view it as an ally.

Whether you agree with Brzezinski’s positions or not misses the point. The point is that the incredibly Muslim-friendly Obama seems to.

How does all this square with Frank Marshall Davis, a confirmed member of the Soviet Russian Communist Party USA (CPUSA) being a childhood mentor of Obama for so many years? Vernon Jarrett, the father-in-law of Obama’s closest and most trusted advisor Valerie Jarrett was a close colleague of Davis when the two lived in Chicago years before Obama’s birth. Obama himself boasted about hanging out with Marxists while at Occidental Community College, reportedly based on the mentoring of Davis.

Brzezinski – who would likely despise Davis – continues to be a major influence on Barack Obama.

So does Davis, but not in the way many might think. Obama’s reliance on Brzezinski would seem to indicate the President is relying on the tactics of his childhood mentor to achieve different ends, in part by relying on a resource who likely has sheer animus for that mentor.

Source: Shoebat, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Christian Persecution Follows US, UK and France in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

Main threat to U.S., Russia: Radical Islam, not each other

Religious Freedom Advocate: Saudi royal family will not allow Obama to defeat Sunni ISIL militants

Why do we hate Putin more than Islamic terrorists?

Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

Christian Persecution Follows US, UK and France in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Recent interventions by America, France and the United Kingdom equates to Christian persecution and enormous instability. This reality would appear to be a constant Western policy because the same scenario keeps on happening. Of course, in terms of numbers then Muslims have been killed in vast numbers based on sectarianism and political motives. However, for minority Christian communities in Kosovo, Libya, Iraq and Syria it is clear that Western meddling is creating a nightmare for Christians.

Indeed, it is ironic that in Syria it is the mainly Muslim members of the armed forces that are protecting Christians from brutal Takfiri sectarians, Islamist terrorist groups and an array of mercenaries. Like usual, these brutal forces in Syria are being supported by America, France and the United Kingdom based on Gulf petrodollars and the intrigues of Turkey. Therefore, even when opposition terrorist and sectarian forces kidnap Christian nuns, attack churches and threaten to cleanse the Christian minority this doesn’t worry America, France and the United Kingdom. Instead, these three Western powers just prepare more spin and hide behind language. Yet all three nations know what happened in Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.

The latest massacre against Christians happened in Libya whereby seven Egyptian Christians have been executed by suspected Islamists. Of course, during the rule of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya the Christian community wasn’t singled out. However, Western and Gulf powers utilized terrorists and mercenaries in order to defeat Gaddafi in Libya therefore not surprisingly today this nation faces growing Islamist militancy.

In Kosovo after the ending of this conflict it is clear that many Orthodox Christian have been killed, churches destroyed and many Christian areas have been written off the map. Indeed, even today Orthodox Christians can’t fully travel around Kosovo because of the fear of being attacked. Also, many ancient Orthodox Christian monuments have been destroyed and now the indigenous Orthodox Christian community resides in ghettoes in Kosovo.

In Iraq it is clear that Saddam Hussein was both anti-Shia and anti-Kurd but Christians did not face persecution under his watch. Yet when Iraq was invaded then soon this would be followed by sectarianism, terrorism and anti-Christian attacks. This reality led to the majority of Christians fleeing their homeland because at no time were the various Christian communities deemed to be worthy of being protected by Western troops. Instead, just like the Orthodox Christians of Kosovo, the Christians of Iraq would soon be in disarray after being abandoned by allied forces based on the political whims of Western political elites in America and the United Kingdom.

The government of Syria is now fighting for its survival therefore the various Christian communities fear another Iraq.  At the moment, Christians can still worship freely in Syrian government controlled areas. Yet, in areas under various terrorist and Takfiri groups, it is clear that Christians are being pressured to convert to Islam, cleansed, murdered and other barbaric realities. Despite this, political elites in America, France and the United Kingdom are supporting feudal Gulf nations and the whims of Turkey. Therefore, the survival of Christianity currently depends on the government of Syria because clearly the majority of Christians will flee if Western and Gulf sectarian backed terrorists win.

In Libya the recent brutal execution of seven Egyptian Christians is following the same pattern.  Fox News in January 2014 says: “Libya’s Coptic Christians, who number about 300,000, or 5 percent of the population, were allowed to practice their faith under dictator Muammar Qaddafi. But since the strongman was ousted from power, and ultimately killed, Muslim fundamentalists have increasingly filled the power void. Last month, the national assembly voted in favor of making Koranic law, or Shariah, the basis of all legislative decisions, meaning Islam will shape all future banking, criminal and financial cases.”

Further down in the same article Fox News says: “The emerging political and legal system’s orientation, combined with the rise of militants in the oil-rich nation, has left Christians feeling like the promise of democracy in the wake of Qaddafi’s fall has been broken.”

The massacre of Egyptian Christians in Libya sums up the usual realities following on from the meddling of America, France and the United Kingdom. Can this reality in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria be a coincidence — or, does it mean that an anti-Christian agenda is at the heart of major Western powers? The East Timorese witnessed the same reality just like the Biafrans in Nigeria. Likewise, today Papuans in West Papua face Islamization and Javanization in Indonesia but Western powers care little. It would appear that Christians are expendable when it comes to geopolitical concerns and appeasing the anti-Christian and anti-Shia state of Saudi Arabia.

Orthodox Christians fear to walk openly in Kosovo despite this land being the cradle of Serbian Orthodox Christianity. Likewise, Christians fear to walk in Libya, Iraq and Syria because of the meddling of Western powers.

Source: Modern Tokyo Times, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

Main threat to U.S., Russia: Radical Islam, not each other

Religious Freedom Advocate: Saudi royal family will not allow Obama to defeat Sunni ISIL militants

Why do we hate Putin more than Islamic terrorists?

Blowback! U.S. trained Islamists who joined ISIS

Confirmed: U.S. Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Raymond Ibrahim

Prominent indicators confirm that the U.S. is the chief facilitator of the persecution of Christians around the world today.

Senator John McCain and Syrian “rebels”

According to the recently released 2014 World Watch List, which ranks the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, Syria is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Iraq is fourth, Afghanistan fifth, and Libya 13th. All four countries receive the strongest designation, “extreme persecution” (other designations are “severe,” “moderate,” and “sparse” persecution).

Aside from being so closely and harshly ranked, these four nations have something else in common: heavy U.S. involvement. Three—Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—were “liberated” thanks to U.S. forces, while in the fourth, Syria, the U.S. is actively sponsoring “freedom fighters” against the regime, many of whom would be better labeled “terrorists.”

The Syrian situation alone indicts U.S. foreign policy. According to Reuters:

Open Doors, a non-denominational group supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, said on Wednesday it had documented 2,123 “martyr” killings, compared with 1,201 in 2012. There were 1,213 such deaths in Syria alone last year, it said. “This is a very minimal count based on what has been reported in the media and we can confirm,” said Frans Veerman, head of research for Open Doors. Estimates by other Christian groups put the annual figure as high as 8,000.

While most Americans are shielded from the true nature of the war by the U.S. media’s reluctance to report on it, Arabic media, websites, and activists daily report and document atrocity after atrocity—beheadings and bombed churches, Christians slaughtered for refusing to convert to Islam, and countless abducted for ransom or rape—at the hands of those whom the U.S. supports.

It’s enough to point out that “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” to quote a top religious leader, was left wholly unreported by any major U.S. news network.

At any rate, the statistics speak for themselves: Syria, which used to be religiously tolerant, is now, in the context of the United States’ trying to bring “democracy” to it, the third worst country in the world in terms of “extreme persecution” of Christians.

The Blaze reports that Dr. David Curry, president of Open Doors,

charged that the Obama administration has essentially declined to make the protection of religious minorities a priority . . . “There are many instances where the vacuum of leadership and spokesmanship has created a real problem,” said the human rights leader. “I would say that every significant data point on this year’s ‘2014 Watch List’ is worse—and I think a factor in it is a lack of leadership from Western governments including . . . the U.S. in terms of religious freedom.”

But it’s worse than that. Far from taking any action or providing leadership—or simply ceasing to support the terrorists responsible—the Obama administration recently tried to go to war with Syria on behalf of the “freedom fighters,” amazingly, in the name of “human rights” (Apparently the unsubstantiated rumor that Assad massacred people is enough for the U.S. to go to war, but the ongoing and well-documented massacres of Christians and other civilians at the hands of the opposition is not enough for the U.S. to stop supporting them.)

What’s worse, even the most misinformed mainstream-media-watching American today knows that the so-called “Arab Spring,” which was hailed to justify U.S. support for “rebels” of all stripes—in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (which months ago destroyed some 80 churches); in Libya, al-Qaeda, which has turned Benghazi into a terror zone; and now the “freedom fighters” in Syria—is not what it was touted to be.

In other words, at this point, whenever the U.S. intervenes in an Islamic nation, Islamists come to power. This is well demonstrated by the other three nations to which the U.S. brought “democracy” and where Christian minorities suffer “extreme persecution”:

Afghanistan: The supposedly “moderate” Karzai government installed by the U.S. upholds many of the draconian laws enforced by the Taliban—including the apostasy law, fiercely persecuting those who seek to convert to Christianity—and, in 2011, under U.S. auspices, it destroyed Afghanistan’s last Christian church.

Iraq: After the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, Christian minorities were savagely attacked and slaughtered, and dozens of their churches were bombed (see here for graphic images). Christians have been terrorized into near-extinction, with well over half of them fleeing Iraq.

Libya: Ever since U.S.-backed, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists overthrew Qaddafi, Christians—including Americans—have indeed suffered extreme persecution. Churches have been bombed; Christians have been tortured and killed (including for refusing to convert); and nuns have been threatened.

Surely a common theme emerges here: Where the U.S. works to oust secular autocrats, the quality of life for Christians and other minorities takes a major nosedive. Under Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad, Christians and their churches were largely protected.

Moreover, while George W. Bush was responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq, the argument can be made that, back then (2001 and 2003), this pattern of Islamic radicalization that erupts once autocrats are gone was less well known than it is today. There weren’t many precedents.

Conversely, the Obama administration has had both Afghanistan and Iraq to learn from—and yet still it supports Islamists and jihadis. But by now, what happens once they assume power—religious persecution, terror, oppression—is no longer a secret.

Incidentally, those who care little for the fate of Christians or other minorities in the Islamic world would do well to remember a simple truism: Wherever anti-Christian elements come to power, anti-American forces come to power. The two are synonymous.

Put differently, Muslim persecution of Christians is the litmus test of how radical an Islamic society has become. In all those Muslim nations that the U.S. has interfered in—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt (till the Egyptians revolted, to the chastisement of the U.S.), and now Syria—the increase of religious intolerance is a reflection of the empowerment of forces hostile to Western civilization.

I am often asked, “How can we help persecuted Christians?” At this point, one must respond: “How about starting with getting the U.S. government to stop being the chief facilitator of Christian persecution?” Altruism aside, it would be in the interests of all who value freedom, religious or otherwise—and especially their descendants.

Source: Raymond Ibrahim, via Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

ISIS Praises John McCain For Helping Them Invade Iraq

Presbyterian Church USA Criticizes Israel, Ignores Christian Persecution

Why Does Christian Persecution Get Worse In Every Country The U.S. “Liberates”?