Aleppo Has Fallen - Damascus, Homs In Terrorist Sights

Brandon Turbeville
BrandonTurbeville.com
12/7/2024

In what seems like out of nowhere, years of stalemate between the Syrian government and the terrorists known by mainstream media channels and Western governments as the “Syrian opposition” was broken by a massive push on the part of terrorist forces toward Aleppo. After capturing numerous areas surrounding the city, Aleppo itself was overrun.  

It seemed like no one saw the terrorist onslaught coming and, when they did, it doesn’t appear that anyone – Syria, Hezbollah, Iranian-backed militias, or Russian forces – could stop them. The terrorists took only hours to capture what it took Syrian forces years to liberate.

Now, with the city of Aleppo once again teeming with the extremists of ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, these same terrorists are now knocking loudly on the doors of Damascus and Homs as well. Indeed, the Syrian government has not found itself in such dire straits since the beginning of the conflict in 2011. Once again, Western governments and mainstream media outlets are discussing the potential “fall of Assad” almost as if the “fall” is a foregone conclusion.

If Assad does fall, it will be a massive boon to Israel which has long desired to break the “Shiite Crescent,” the land bridge between Iran and Lebanon that runs through Iraq and Syria, allowing Iran to ship equipment and personnel back and forth to the Israeli border. It will also have succeeded in removing a government unwilling to cooperate with its projects or look the other way in regards to its war on the Palestinian people and its desires for a “Greater Israel.” In addition, a neighbor of petty, squabbling micro states of extremists has long been the desire of the Israeli government since weak extremists, to Israel, is more palatable than a strong secular one.

Nikki Haley Humiliates America, Grovels Before Israel At AIPAC Summit

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
April 12, 2017

In an unparalleled display of fealty and subservience, the United States’ Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, sat before an AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee) and proclaimed all the horrors visited upon the Zionist settler state under the Obama administration as well as all the things the United States has done to support Israel since Trump came to power. In other words, she set up a perfect representation of the narrative that has existed all along; i.e. despite the fact that the Obama administration was an unwavering supporter of Israel, giving historical amounts of money and assistance to the settler state, pledging loyalty to the colony, and actively helping to destroy Israel’s self-made enemies, Obama is still considered a “weak” supporter of Israel.

After strangely stating that she wears heels, not for the fashion statement, but so, if she “see[s] something wrong, I’m gonna kick em’ every single time.” Haley, obviously not understanding that the “heels” are supposed to actually be heels, not a type of shoe, was referring to even the slightest criticism of Israel for murdering Palestinians, steeling their land, or generally starting aggressive wars across the Middle East.

Haley’s entire speech was littered with literal groveling at the foot of AIPAC and Israel. The U.N. Ambassador could barely control the look on her face which reeked of a desire for approval. Throughout the entire speech, Haley’s face screamed “Do you like what I’m saying? Did I do good? Should I turn it up a notch? Would you like anything else?”

A Real New Deal For America - 43 Points

Brandon Turbeville

BrandonTurbeville.com

July 7, 2016

Before Americans become obsessed with debating useless policies and campaign promises or begin their 4 year ritual of “choosing the lesser evil,” it is important to remember that there are real solutions and demands available for a national recovery and a truly free America. A brief summary of some of these solutions and demands are provided below:

1.) End all bailouts of banks and financial institutions. End the concept of “Too Big To Fail.” Any public money given to private banks to maintain solvency must be clawed back by a variety of available means. Banks that find themselves insolvent must be seized by the FDIC for Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Immediate triage of the bank assets with derivatives being separated and eliminated during this process.

2.) In order to bring back the separation of banks, brokerage houses, and insurance firms, reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.

3.) Ban Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Ban Credit Default Swaps.

4.) Enact a 1% Wall Street Sales Tax for revenue generation and to discourage dangerous forms of speculation.

Joshua Cook Interviews Brandon Turbeville

Exclusive: Obama Partnering with the House of Saud is a terrible strategy - Brandon Turbeville Interviewed By Joshua Cook Of BenSwann.com

Joshua Cook

BenSwann.com

September 19, 2014

On Sunday, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was “extremely encouraged” by Saudi Arabia joining the U.S. coalition to fight ISIS. But should Kerry be so enthusiastic? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why does the U.S. government still consider Saudi Arabia to be our ally?

According to former Secretary of State and potential U.S. president candidate Hillary Clinton, ISIS has received funding from the Saudis.

Eight years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Clinton, wrote in a cable leaked by WikiLeaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan) and other terrorist groups.”

Senator Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11, has said the Washington has turned a blind eye to the Saudis support.

“I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the U.S. – and in particular their support for Isis,”he said.

ISIS In Iraq and The Path To Iran

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

June 19, 2014

Recently, I wrote an article entitled, “The Clandestine Reasons For ISIS Taking Over Iraq,” where I suggested there were at least two possible reasons out of several for NATO powers to direct ISIS fighters in their rampage across Iraq and subsequent seizure of large swaths of territory in that country.

One of the reasons for directing ISIS’ assault against Iraq is the ability to arm the organization with heavy military equipment to then be funneled across the border into Syria for use in that country. Such equipment as tanks, Humvees, and even helicopters could thus be written off as a mistake and not the backdoor weapons transfer that it was.

Second, and more likely, is the possibility that the United States has allowed ISIS to conquer Iraqi territory so as to justify the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as “cross-border” strikes against the organization in Syria. Such “cross-border” strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing “handcuffs on the troops.”

Any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the “buffer zone” that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. With the establishment of this “buffer zone,” a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria.

ISIS In Iraq To Be Used To Justify Invasion In Syria

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

June 19, 2014

Recently, I wrote an article entitled, “The Clandestine Reasons For ISIS Taking Over Iraq,” where I suggested that one possible reason out of several for NATO powers to direct ISIS fighters in their rampage across Iraq and subsequent seizure of large swaths of territory in that country was the ability to set the stage for a NATO bombing campaign in Iraq that would immediately lead to the same in Syria.

No sooner than this article was published did we see the first rumblings out of the Western mainstream media and government mouthpieces suggesting that a bombing campaign in Iraq and, indeed, Syria is an option that should be put on the table.

Thus, as US fighter jets patrol the skies of Iraq, Western audiences are hearing familiar rumblings of reasons to engage in the bombing of both Iraq and Syria. Take, for instance, the article by Patrick Cockburn published in The Independent on June 19, 2014 entitled “Iraq Crisis Exclusive: US Rules Out Military Action Until Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Stands Down,” where Cockburn argues the necessity of a series of airstrikes to be launched against both Iraq and Syria.

Cockburn writes,

The general support for the Sunni revolt in northern and western Iraq will make it very difficult for any counter-offensive, which would be facing far more opponents than Isis originally fielded. Isis now controls almost all the Euphrates valley from Fallujah west of Baghdad through western Iraq and eastern Syria as far as the Turkish border. Any long-term campaign against Isis by the Iraqi government backed by US air power would require air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq. The two countries have effectively become a single battlefield.

The Clandestine Reasons for ISIS Taking Over Iraq

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
June 17, 2014

Recent news of the rapid advance of the Islamic Fundamentalist organization ISIS across a wide swath of Iraq may indeed have come as a shock to a large number of Americans. Indeed, to the general public who pay very little attention to the affairs of other countries or even their own, the fact that the ISIS now controls a large portion of Iraq as well as a portion of Syria not only conjures up images of American foreign policy failure but also of the possibility of re-invading Iraq in order to quell the fundamentalist forces.

The irony, of course, is that “al-Qaeda” and ISIS would never have been in Iraq to begin with had it not been for the United States nor would it have been in Syria if it were not for the fact that the United States, NATO, and the West in general organized, funded, trained, armed, and directed it.

Unfortunately, the Orwellian nature of the manner in which the “news” is presented to the American public almost absolves them of the blame for being utterly confused at the events transpiring overseas. From the constant fearmongering and propaganda after 9/11 over the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists to our “freedoms” to the subsequent open funding of al-Qaeda in other countries, the American people are constantly bounced back and forth between fear and support of the terrorist organization and networks now in control of such large portions of land in the Middle East.

Thirteen years after 9/11, extremists have gained more power in the region than they ever had before the “Global War On Terror” began. The only question is why they were allowed to seize so much territory, particularly inside a country that was seemingly so important to the United States.

Somalia: The List of "Pacified" Nations Continues to Grow

drone attacks in Somalia / WP

Brandon TurbevilleActivist Post
September 7, 2011

By now, the fact that retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clarke went public about a plan he encountered at the Pentagon to attack seven countries in five years, is no longer major news. After all, Clarke revealed this information in 2006, years after the illegal and lie-based war on Iraq was launched and years after it was too late to stop it.

Clarke’s revelation is particularly interesting considering the fact that the plan, apparently behind schedule if his dates are correct, also mentioned Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran as target countries of American Neo-Con aggression.

In 2006, at the Univesity of Alabama, in regards to a conversation he had with another general at the Pentagon, Clarke stated:

I said, “Are we still going to invade Iraq?” “Yes, Sir,” he said, “but it’s worse than that.” I said, “How do you mean?” He held up this piece of paper. He said, “I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It’s a… five-year plan. We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years. I said, “Is that classified, that paper?” He said, “Yes Sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me, because I want to be able to talk about it.”

The war in Iraq needs no introduction as it has been a facet of the geopolitical landscape since 2003, every year becoming more and more a fact of life for Americans and, unfortunately, for the Iraqi victims as well.