Parry writes: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown U.S. policymakers
what amounts to a lifeline to pull them out of the quicksand that is the
Syrian war, but Official Washington's neocons and the mainstream U.S. news
media are growling about Putin's audacity and challenging his motives."
President Obama with Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: AP)
Will US Grasp Putin's Syria Lifeline?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
25 September 15
The neocons' obsession with "regime change" in Syria is driving another one
of Official Washington's "group thinks" toward rejecting Russia's offer to
help stabilize the war-torn country and stem the destabilizing flood of
refugees into Europe, writes Robert Parry.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown U.S. policymakers what amounts
to a lifeline to pull them out of the quicksand that is the Syrian war, but
Official Washington's neocons and the mainstream U.S. news media are
growling about Putin's audacity and challenging his motives.
For instance, The New York Times' lead editorial on Monday accused Putin of
"dangerously building up Russia's military presence" in Syria, even though
Putin's stated goal is to help crush the Sunni jihadists in the Islamic
State and other extremist movements.
Instead, the Times harrumphs about Putin using his upcoming speech to the
United Nations General Assembly "to make the case for an international
coalition against the Islamic State, apparently ignoring the one already
being led by the United States."
The Times then reprises the bizarre neocon argument that the best way to
solve the threat from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other jihadist forces
is to eliminate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his military who have
been the principal obstacles to an outright victory by the Sunni terrorist
groups.
The dreamy Times/neocon prescription continues to be that "regime change" in
Damascus would finally lead to the emergence of the mythical "moderate"
rebels who would somehow prevail over the far more numerous and far better
armed extremists. This perspective ignores the fact that after a $500
million training project for these "moderates," the U.S. military says four
or five fighters are now on the battlefield inside Syria. In other words,
the members of this U.S.-trained brigade can be counted on the fingers of
one hand.
But rather than rethink Official Washington's goofy "group think" on Syria -
or provide readers a fuller history of the Syrian conflict - the Times moves
on to blame Putin for the mess.
"No one should be fooled about Russia's culpability in Syria's agony," the
Times writes. "Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has
killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked
with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his
people following peaceful antigovernment protests. . Mr. Assad would
probably be gone without the weapons aid and other assistance from Russia
and Iran."
This "group think" ignores the early role of Sunni extremists in killing
police and soldiers and thus provoking the harsh retaliation that followed.
But the Syrian narrative, according to The New York Times, is that the
"white-hat" protesters were simply set upon by the "black-hat" government.
The Times' simplistic storyline fits neatly with what the influential
neoconservatives want the West to believe, since the neocons have had Syria
on their "regime change" list, alongside Iraq and Iran, since the list was
compiled as part of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's 1996 political
campaign. The Times' narrative also leaves out the crucial role of Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S. "allies" in supporting Al Qaeda and its
Islamic State spinoff.
Bush's Unaccounted-for Cash
Further complicating Official Washington's let's-blame-Putin Syrian
narrative is the unintended role of President George W. Bush and the U.S.
military in laying the groundwork for these brutal Sunni extremist movements
through the invasion of Iraq last decade. After all, it was only in reaction
to the U.S. military presence that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" took root in Iraqi and
then Syrian territory.
Not only did the ouster and execution of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein
alienate the region's Sunnis, but Bush's desperation to avert an outright
military defeat in Iraq during his second term led him to authorize the
payment of billions of dollars to Sunni fighters to get them to stop
shooting at American soldiers and to give Bush time to negotiate a U.S.
troop withdrawal.
Beginning in 2006, those U.S. payments to Sunni fighters to get them to
suspend their resistance were central to what was then called the "Sunni
Awakening." Though the program preceded Bush's "surge" of troops in 2007,
the bought-and-paid-for truce became central to what Official Washington
then hailed as the "successful surge" or "victory at last."
Besides the billions of dollars paid out in pallets of U.S. cash to Sunni
insurgents, Bush's "surge" cost the lives of another 1,000 U.S. soldiers and
killed a countless number of Iraqis, many just going about their daily lives
until they were blown apart by powerful American munitions. [See, for
example, the "Collateral Murder" video leaked by Pvt. Bradley/Chelsea
Manning]
But what the U.S. intelligence community is only now assessing is the
collateral damage caused by the bribes that the Bush administration paid to
Sunni insurgents. Some of the cash appears to have become seed money for the
transformation of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" into the Islamic State as Sunnis, who
continued to be disenfranchised by Iraq's Shiite-dominated government,
expanded their sectarian war into Syria.
Besides the Iraqi Sunnis, Syria's secular government, with Assad and other
key leaders from the Alawite branch of Shiite Islam, also was set upon by
home-grown Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists, some of whom joined the
Islamic State but mostly coalesced around Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and other
radical forces. Though the Islamic State had originated as "Al Qaeda in
Iraq" (or AQI), it evolved into an even more bloodthirsty force and, in
Syria, split off from Al Qaeda central.
Intelligence Reporting
U.S. intelligence followed many of these developments in real time.
According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012, "AQI
supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and
through the media. . AQI declared its opposition of Assad's government
because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis."
In other words, Assad's early complaint about "terrorists" having
infiltrated the opposition had a basis in fact. Early in the disorders in
2011, there were cases of armed elements killing police and soldiers. Later,
there were terrorist bombings targeting senior Syrian government officials,
including a July 18, 2012 explosion - deemed a suicide bombing by government
officials - that killed Syrian Defense Minister General Dawoud Rajiha and
Assef Shawkat, the deputy defense minister and Assad's brother-in-law.
By then, it had become clear that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other
Sunni-ruled countries were funneling money and other help to jihadist rebels
seeking to oust Assad's regime, which was considered a protector of
Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities fearing persecution if
Sunni extremists prevailed.
As the 2012 DIA report noted about Syria, "internally, events are taking a
clear sectarian direction. . The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI
are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. . The West, Gulf
countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran
support the regime."
The DIA analysts already understood the risks that AQI represented both to
Syria and Iraq. The report included a stark warning about the expansion of
AQI, which was changing into the Islamic State or what the DIA referred to
as ISI. The brutal armed movement was seeing its ranks swelled by the
arrival of global jihadists rallying to the black banner of Sunni militancy,
intolerant of both Westerners and "heretics" from Shiite and other non-Sunni
branches of Islam.
As this movement strengthened it risked spilling back into Iraq. The DIA
wrote: "This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old
pockets in Mosul and Ramadi [in Iraq], and will provide a renewed momentum
under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and
the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one
enemy, the dissenters [apparently a reference to Shiite and other non-Sunni
forms of Islam]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union
with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create
grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its
territory."
Facing this growing Sunni terrorist threat - which indeed did spill back
into Iraq - the idea that the CIA or the U.S. military could effectively arm
and train a "moderate" rebel force to somehow compete with the Islamists was
already delusional, yet that was the "group think" among the Important
People of Official Washington, simply organize a "moderate" army to oust
Assad and everything would turn out just great.
On Oct. 2, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden let more of the cat out of the bag
when he told an audience at Harvard's Kennedy School: "our allies in the
region were our largest problem in Syria . the Saudis, the emirates, etc.,
what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and
essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured
hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military
weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who
were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of
jihadis coming from other parts of the world." [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]
In other words, much of the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition actually
has been involved in financing and arming many of the same jihadists that
the coalition is now supposedly fighting. If you take into account the lost
billions of dollars that the Bush administration dumped on Sunni fighters
starting in 2006, you could argue that the U.S.-led coalition bears primary
responsibility for creating the problem that it is now confronting.
Biden made a similar point at least in reference to the Persian Gulf states:
"Now all of a sudden, I don't want to be too facetious, but they have seen
the lord. . Saudi Arabia has stopped funding. Saudi Arabia is allowing
training [of anti-Islamic State fighters] on its soil . the Qataris have cut
off their support for the most extreme elements of terrorist organizations,
and the Turks . [are] trying to seal their border."
But there remain many doubts about the commitment of these Sunni governments
to the cause of fighting the Islamic State and even more doubts about
whether that commitment extends to Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and other jihadist
forces. Some neocons have even advocated backing Al Qaeda as the lesser evil
both vis a vis the Islamic State and the Assad regime.
Blaming Putin
Yet, the Times editorial on Monday blamed Putin for a big chunk of the
Syrian mess because Russia has dared support the internationally recognized
Syrian government in the face of vicious foreign-supported terrorism. The
Times casts no blame on the United States or its allies for the Syrian
horror.
The Times also hurled personal insults at Putin as part of its equally
one-sided narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which the editorial writers have
summarized as simply a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion"
- ignoring the behind-the-scenes role of neocon Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland in orchestrating the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected
President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014.
In Monday's editorial, the Times reported that President Barack Obama
"considers Mr. Putin a thug," though it was President Obama who boasted just
last month, "I've ordered military action in seven countries," another
inconvenient fact that the Times discreetly leaves out. In other words,
who's the "thug"?
Yet, despite all its huffing and puffing and calling Putin names, the Times
ultimately concludes that Obama should test out the lifeline that Putin has
tossed to Obama's Syrian policy which - with all its thrashing and arm
waving - is rapidly disappearing into the quicksand. The editorial
concluded:
"Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in London on Friday, made it clear
that America would be looking for 'common ground' in Syria, which could mean
keeping Mr. Assad in power temporarily during a transition. The Russians
should accept that Mr. Assad must go within a specific time frame, say six
months. The objective is a transition government that includes elements of
the Assad regime and the opposition. Iran should be part of any deal.
"America should be aware that Mr. Putin's motivations are decidedly mixed
and that he may not care nearly as much about joining the fight against the
Islamic State as propping up his old ally. But with that in mind there is no
reason not to test him."
Kerry's apparent willingness to work with the Russians - a position that I'm
told Obama shares - is at least a sign that some sanity exists inside the
State Department, which initially mounted an absurd and futile attempt to
organize an aerial blockade to prevent Russia from flying in any assistance
to Syria.
If successful, that scheme, emanating from Nuland's European division, could
have collapsed the Syrian regime and opened the gates of Damascus to the
Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda. So obsessed are the neocons to achieve their
long-held goal of "regime change" in Syria that they would run the risk of
turning Syria over to the Islamic State head-choppers and Al Qaeda's
terrorism plotters.
However, after the requisite snorting and pawing of hooves, it appears that
the cooler heads in the Obama administration may have finally asserted
themselves - and perhaps at The New York Times as well.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Obama with Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: AP)
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/22/will-us-grasp-putins-syria-lifeline/ht
tps://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/22/will-us-grasp-putins-syria-lifeline/
Will US Grasp Putin's Syria Lifeline?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
25 September 15
The neocons' obsession with "regime change" in Syria is driving another one
of Official Washington's "group thinks" toward rejecting Russia's offer to
help stabilize the war-torn country and stem the destabilizing flood of
refugees into Europe, writes Robert Parry.
ussian President Vladimir Putin has thrown U.S. policymakers what amounts
to a lifeline to pull them out of the quicksand that is the Syrian war, but
Official Washington's neocons and the mainstream U.S. news media are
growling about Putin's audacity and challenging his motives.
For instance, The New York Times' lead editorial on Monday accused Putin of
"dangerously building up Russia's military presence" in Syria, even though
Putin's stated goal is to help crush the Sunni jihadists in the Islamic
State and other extremist movements.
Instead, the Times harrumphs about Putin using his upcoming speech to the
United Nations General Assembly "to make the case for an international
coalition against the Islamic State, apparently ignoring the one already
being led by the United States."
The Times then reprises the bizarre neocon argument that the best way to
solve the threat from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other jihadist forces
is to eliminate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his military who have
been the principal obstacles to an outright victory by the Sunni terrorist
groups.
The dreamy Times/neocon prescription continues to be that "regime change" in
Damascus would finally lead to the emergence of the mythical "moderate"
rebels who would somehow prevail over the far more numerous and far better
armed extremists. This perspective ignores the fact that after a $500
million training project for these "moderates," the U.S. military says four
or five fighters are now on the battlefield inside Syria. In other words,
the members of this U.S.-trained brigade can be counted on the fingers of
one hand.
But rather than rethink Official Washington's goofy "group think" on Syria -
or provide readers a fuller history of the Syrian conflict - the Times moves
on to blame Putin for the mess.
"No one should be fooled about Russia's culpability in Syria's agony," the
Times writes. "Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has
killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked
with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his
people following peaceful antigovernment protests. . Mr. Assad would
probably be gone without the weapons aid and other assistance from Russia
and Iran."
This "group think" ignores the early role of Sunni extremists in killing
police and soldiers and thus provoking the harsh retaliation that followed.
But the Syrian narrative, according to The New York Times, is that the
"white-hat" protesters were simply set upon by the "black-hat" government.
The Times' simplistic storyline fits neatly with what the influential
neoconservatives want the West to believe, since the neocons have had Syria
on their "regime change" list, alongside Iraq and Iran, since the list was
compiled as part of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu's 1996 political
campaign. The Times' narrative also leaves out the crucial role of Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S. "allies" in supporting Al Qaeda and its
Islamic State spinoff.
Bush's Unaccounted-for Cash
Further complicating Official Washington's let's-blame-Putin Syrian
narrative is the unintended role of President George W. Bush and the U.S.
military in laying the groundwork for these brutal Sunni extremist movements
through the invasion of Iraq last decade. After all, it was only in reaction
to the U.S. military presence that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" took root in Iraqi and
then Syrian territory.
Not only did the ouster and execution of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein
alienate the region's Sunnis, but Bush's desperation to avert an outright
military defeat in Iraq during his second term led him to authorize the
payment of billions of dollars to Sunni fighters to get them to stop
shooting at American soldiers and to give Bush time to negotiate a U.S.
troop withdrawal.
Beginning in 2006, those U.S. payments to Sunni fighters to get them to
suspend their resistance were central to what was then called the "Sunni
Awakening." Though the program preceded Bush's "surge" of troops in 2007,
the bought-and-paid-for truce became central to what Official Washington
then hailed as the "successful surge" or "victory at last."
Besides the billions of dollars paid out in pallets of U.S. cash to Sunni
insurgents, Bush's "surge" cost the lives of another 1,000 U.S. soldiers and
killed a countless number of Iraqis, many just going about their daily lives
until they were blown apart by powerful American munitions. [See, for
example, the "Collateral Murder" video leaked by Pvt. Bradley/Chelsea
Manning]
But what the U.S. intelligence community is only now assessing is the
collateral damage caused by the bribes that the Bush administration paid to
Sunni insurgents. Some of the cash appears to have become seed money for the
transformation of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" into the Islamic State as Sunnis, who
continued to be disenfranchised by Iraq's Shiite-dominated government,
expanded their sectarian war into Syria.
Besides the Iraqi Sunnis, Syria's secular government, with Assad and other
key leaders from the Alawite branch of Shiite Islam, also was set upon by
home-grown Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists, some of whom joined the
Islamic State but mostly coalesced around Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and other
radical forces. Though the Islamic State had originated as "Al Qaeda in
Iraq" (or AQI), it evolved into an even more bloodthirsty force and, in
Syria, split off from Al Qaeda central.
Intelligence Reporting
U.S. intelligence followed many of these developments in real time.
According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012, "AQI
supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and
through the media. . AQI declared its opposition of Assad's government
because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis."
In other words, Assad's early complaint about "terrorists" having
infiltrated the opposition had a basis in fact. Early in the disorders in
2011, there were cases of armed elements killing police and soldiers. Later,
there were terrorist bombings targeting senior Syrian government officials,
including a July 18, 2012 explosion - deemed a suicide bombing by government
officials - that killed Syrian Defense Minister General Dawoud Rajiha and
Assef Shawkat, the deputy defense minister and Assad's brother-in-law.
By then, it had become clear that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other
Sunni-ruled countries were funneling money and other help to jihadist rebels
seeking to oust Assad's regime, which was considered a protector of
Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities fearing persecution if
Sunni extremists prevailed.
As the 2012 DIA report noted about Syria, "internally, events are taking a
clear sectarian direction. . The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI
are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. . The West, Gulf
countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran
support the regime."
The DIA analysts already understood the risks that AQI represented both to
Syria and Iraq. The report included a stark warning about the expansion of
AQI, which was changing into the Islamic State or what the DIA referred to
as ISI. The brutal armed movement was seeing its ranks swelled by the
arrival of global jihadists rallying to the black banner of Sunni militancy,
intolerant of both Westerners and "heretics" from Shiite and other non-Sunni
branches of Islam.
As this movement strengthened it risked spilling back into Iraq. The DIA
wrote: "This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old
pockets in Mosul and Ramadi [in Iraq], and will provide a renewed momentum
under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and
the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one
enemy, the dissenters [apparently a reference to Shiite and other non-Sunni
forms of Islam]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union
with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create
grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its
territory."
Facing this growing Sunni terrorist threat - which indeed did spill back
into Iraq - the idea that the CIA or the U.S. military could effectively arm
and train a "moderate" rebel force to somehow compete with the Islamists was
already delusional, yet that was the "group think" among the Important
People of Official Washington, simply organize a "moderate" army to oust
Assad and everything would turn out just great.
On Oct. 2, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden let more of the cat out of the bag
when he told an audience at Harvard's Kennedy School: "our allies in the
region were our largest problem in Syria . the Saudis, the emirates, etc.,
what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and
essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured
hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military
weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who
were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of
jihadis coming from other parts of the world." [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]
In other words, much of the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition actually
has been involved in financing and arming many of the same jihadists that
the coalition is now supposedly fighting. If you take into account the lost
billions of dollars that the Bush administration dumped on Sunni fighters
starting in 2006, you could argue that the U.S.-led coalition bears primary
responsibility for creating the problem that it is now confronting.
Biden made a similar point at least in reference to the Persian Gulf states:
"Now all of a sudden, I don't want to be too facetious, but they have seen
the lord. . Saudi Arabia has stopped funding. Saudi Arabia is allowing
training [of anti-Islamic State fighters] on its soil . the Qataris have cut
off their support for the most extreme elements of terrorist organizations,
and the Turks . [are] trying to seal their border."
But there remain many doubts about the commitment of these Sunni governments
to the cause of fighting the Islamic State and even more doubts about
whether that commitment extends to Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and other jihadist
forces. Some neocons have even advocated backing Al Qaeda as the lesser evil
both vis a vis the Islamic State and the Assad regime.
Blaming Putin
Yet, the Times editorial on Monday blamed Putin for a big chunk of the
Syrian mess because Russia has dared support the internationally recognized
Syrian government in the face of vicious foreign-supported terrorism. The
Times casts no blame on the United States or its allies for the Syrian
horror.
The Times also hurled personal insults at Putin as part of its equally
one-sided narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which the editorial writers have
summarized as simply a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion"
- ignoring the behind-the-scenes role of neocon Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland in orchestrating the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected
President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014.
In Monday's editorial, the Times reported that President Barack Obama
"considers Mr. Putin a thug," though it was President Obama who boasted just
last month, "I've ordered military action in seven countries," another
inconvenient fact that the Times discreetly leaves out. In other words,
who's the "thug"?
Yet, despite all its huffing and puffing and calling Putin names, the Times
ultimately concludes that Obama should test out the lifeline that Putin has
tossed to Obama's Syrian policy which - with all its thrashing and arm
waving - is rapidly disappearing into the quicksand. The editorial
concluded:
"Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in London on Friday, made it clear
that America would be looking for 'common ground' in Syria, which could mean
keeping Mr. Assad in power temporarily during a transition. The Russians
should accept that Mr. Assad must go within a specific time frame, say six
months. The objective is a transition government that includes elements of
the Assad regime and the opposition. Iran should be part of any deal.
"America should be aware that Mr. Putin's motivations are decidedly mixed
and that he may not care nearly as much about joining the fight against the
Islamic State as propping up his old ally. But with that in mind there is no
reason not to test him."
Kerry's apparent willingness to work with the Russians - a position that I'm
told Obama shares - is at least a sign that some sanity exists inside the
State Department, which initially mounted an absurd and futile attempt to
organize an aerial blockade to prevent Russia from flying in any assistance
to Syria.
If successful, that scheme, emanating from Nuland's European division, could
have collapsed the Syrian regime and opened the gates of Damascus to the
Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda. So obsessed are the neocons to achieve their
long-held goal of "regime change" in Syria that they would run the risk of
turning Syria over to the Islamic State head-choppers and Al Qaeda's
terrorism plotters.
However, after the requisite snorting and pawing of hooves, it appears that
the cooler heads in the Obama administration may have finally asserted
themselves - and perhaps at The New York Times as well.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
