Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 21, 2015
The Jew media is again pushing the goofy atrocity lies of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Russia has recently called this organization out as a hoax, and yet the media continues with their lie that it is a serious group, even while no one denies that it is just one guy in an attack in the UK and that none of his claims can be independently verified by even a single individual.
Ynet:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released a report on Friday night, which thoroughly analyzed all airstrikes conducted in Syria during the last 13 months. The report’s statistics include casualty reports from recent Russian strikes in Syria, which according to the monitors have killed more civilians than fighters.
Overall, the SOHR documented 42,234 airstrikes in Syria in the span of 13 months, from October 20, 2014 to November 20 of this year. The figures included airstrikes which took place on Friday morning and targeted several farms, “villages, towns and cities in 13 provinces,” according to the organization.
The Russian Air Force conducted its first airstrike in Syrian at the end of September, and since then, “hundreds of airstrikes carried out by the Russian air force have killed 403 civilians, including 97 children and 69 women, and 381 fighters from Jabhat al- Nusra, IS, the rebel and Islamist factions,” according to the Observatory.
If civilians are being bombed, why are the only people speaking out against the Russian strikes terrorists and anti-Assad Westerners? Why are we not hearing from civilians? Why, in the age of smart phones, are there no videos or images of Russians bombing civilians?
How can anyone in their right mind take this organization seriously?
Of course, no one can. But the media pushes it, and does not bother to explain that it is one anti-Assad activist in an attic in the UK.
Rami Rahman, who is as an individual the embodiment of this alleged “observatory,” necessarily supports ISIS, as ISIS is anti-Assad, and his entire life has been devoted to bringing down Assad. This can be compared to the way I support Hezbollah and Assad because they are against Jew-Israel. Anyone supports any group that is against their enemies, naturally. It is basic common sense.
Meanwhile, the Jew media continues to claim that to stop ISIS we must stop the enemies of ISIS, which are Assad and Iran.
Newsweek has a piece by Giulio Maria Terzi, the former Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs who has a Jewlike face and is an advisor for the Friends of Israel and has hosted the World Jewish Congress (he’s not a confirmed Jew, that I am able to find – maybe an Italian reader can confirm), which sums up what all the media and every Western government (besides maybe France for the last few days) is claiming.
Syria and Iraq are ISIS’s hub, a base for organization, recruitment, training and weaponry, and the West must intensify its campaign to end this epicenter of evil. However, attacks against ISIS alone will not stop the cycle of violence. We have to fight against the triggers of radicalization as well and combat this cancer at its root.
That means the West ought to be unequivocally decisive in pressing for the ouster of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whose carnage against the Syrian people amounts to a crime against humanity and has provided the unsavory social and political circumstances for the rise of ISIS. At the same time, we need to work urgently to eliminate the sectarianism being spread by the Iranian regime and its allies in the region.
Once again there is no explanation of this alleged “carnage against the Syrian people,” and we are – once again – left wondering why, if the Syrian people are subject to this carnage, Assad won in a landslide in last year’s election.
We are then left with the fact that even if some vague, unnamed “carnage” is being committed, the people themselves obviously like it, and it really isn’t any of anyone else’s business.
Also, it seems to me that the rise of ISIS is related to the destablization of the region through the Jewish system of regime change. Dictators, whom the West likes to label “brutal,” have ruled the Middle East for a long time, and you did not have ISIS.
The continuation of ISIS seems to be related to the fact that someone is arming and funding them. Much of their funding is coming from the oil fields they control, and the US has refused to bomb these oil fields.
Russia, of course, is now bombing oil fields. The Donald suggested this before Russia started doing it, by the way.
The Newsweek piece then jumps to defense of mass migration into Europe – because the same exact people who want to protect ISIS by attacking Assad also support this invasion. It’s incredible to see, really – so open and bold about “we support anything that harms the West and helps Jews.”
Again, written by a man who is at the very least a radical promoter of the Jewish agenda, perhaps a Jew himself.
Here in Europe, any broad reaction of collective punishment against Muslim immigrants would be not only horribly unjust but also dangerous. Eight people caused last week’s reign of violence. That’s a minuscule percentage amongst a huge number of refugees and an even smaller percentage amongst a population that represents over 10 percent of France.
It’s well over 10 percent, and approximately 100% of them support ISIS.
As you yourself reported, Newsweek:
How do you explain that one then?
Sure, it was only 8 people who burned the bitch, but the other 8-10 million Moslems in France were cheering them on – by your own numbers, Newsweek!
Who is kidding who here, Giulio???
Let’s instead remember recent history. It was a Muslim who saved Jews during the attack last January on a Jewish store and a Muslim policeman who was killed defending Charlie Hebdo journalists who ridiculed his faith. These immigrants are escaping horrors perpetrated by the same people who carried out or were the root cause of last week’s attack in Paris.
Focusing on the extremists amongst a largely peaceful population means focusing on ISIS and also on Iran and its proxies.
But Iran isn’t attacking us! Nor are they threatening to! In fact, Iran is in the middle of a gigantic war with the people attacking us!
How do you jump from one to the other? How is it possible to be against both ISIS and Iran?
Before ISIS, Iran invented the notion of exporting Islamic extremism; propped up regimes in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere; and encouraged them in the implementation of sectarianism and rampant bloodshed. Even if the Shiite militias that acted as killing squads against Sunnis in Iraq, or perpetrated widespread massacres in Syria, didn’t entirely cause ISIS’s rise, they undeniably added fuel to the fire and continue to do so.
Which Shiite militia’s are we talking about? The ones the US put in place after they ousted Saddam?
There should be zero tolerance by the West for Iran’s nefarious meddling in Syria, and, as members of Syria’s pro-democracy opposition have said, there should be no question about giving Tehran a say over Syria’s political future.
“Nefarious meddling”? By that you mean “fighting the people who are killing us on the streets of Paris”?
Also, good job not citing who the hell you’re even talking about when you mention “Syria’s pro-democracy opposition” – Assad got almost 90% of the vote in a free election, meaning no one who is “pro-democracy” can be anti-Assad! The man has been democratically elected!
If the U.S. invasion in Iraq has taught us anything, it is that imposing an ideology that is not popularly supported, from the outside alone, is a disastrous policy. Instead, working with moderate stakeholders committed to inclusive rule, similar interests and, if possible, similar values is a far better path to take.
Finally stating an obvious fact that no one can argue with to tie all of your gibberish together.
But common sense shows that Assad is a “moderate stakeholder” who is “committed to inclusive rule” and has similar interests and values.
That means working with Kurds and moderate forces in Syria to replace Assad and battle ISIS, but it also means working with those same allies against Iranian extremism. Luckily, in that case, we have a large, organized partner with whom we share not only the goal of inclusive rule, or even interests, but also values. That group is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the NCRI, a moderate Muslim woman leader who is fiercely anti-fundamentalist, said immediately after the Paris attacks that fundamentalism under the name of Islam has nothing to do with this religion, whether it is under the pretext of Shiite extremism or under ISIS’s Sunni brand. Such anti-human crimes have nothing to do with Islam, and such evil is the enemy of peace and mankind wherever it exists.
NCRI is just another ridiculous Western proxy which no actual Moslems in these countries support. It is delusional to pretend that this group has any influence on the ground at all. The same thing with the Syrian National Council – you cannot find anyone actually in Syria who supports them.
All that these groups do is serve as an excuse to continue the chaos, claiming that you are working toward some impossible concept of “democracy in the Middle East” – a form of democracy where you are not allowed to vote for a “dictator,” and the Jews determine who is or isn’t a dictator.
Moderate policies at home, including identifying with moderate Muslims who are our allies, coupled with military countermeasures that strike ISIS in its lair, are the best defense France and indeed the West can produce. But any gains will soon dissipate if we’re striking at one extremist group while ignoring another.
A piecemeal solution is going to be short-lived. To not see more carnage next season, the order will be to get rid of Assad as expeditiously as possible and stop Tehran’s meddling in Syria as his main backer.Let there be no illusion. Assad and Iran make up the second half of this extremist equation, and we must work with moderate allies to combat them as well. Only then will we be able to break this cycle of violence.
Note that this entire article fails to mention Russia, which is actually now a bigger backer of Assad than Iran, and will continue to be until they have achieved their goals in the country, which they have stated are to stop terrorism and restore order.
In fact, Russia has been doing a pretty good job with this so far. It seems to me that if you actually cared about establishing order in the country, you would simply step aside and let Russia handle the situation.
If indeed putting Assad back in control will lead to the rise of more terrorism, then it will just make Russia look foolish, and they will then have to deal with the outcome, right?
