ΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΦΙΛΤΡΟ ΦΕΛΛΟΥ

Νέα και Παράξενα-Σελίδες εναλλακτικής πληροφόρησης και ειδήσεων-alternative informations

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Τι Γνωρίζουμε Εμείς για τον Αμερικανό Πρεσβευτή?

Posted by satyrikon στο Μαρτίου 3, 2018

Ο Μιχάλης Ιγνατίου παρακολουθώντας την ομιλία του

Αμερικανού Πρεσβευτή Geoffrey R. Pyatt στο συνέδριο των Δελφών αναρωτιέται σε άρθρο του :

«Τι γνωρίζει ο Αμερικανός πρέσβης, που οι υπόλοιποι αγνοούμε, για το Αιγαίο και την Κύπρο;»

Η ερώτηση όμως θα πρέπει να ειναι διαφορετική ήτοι : «τι γνωρίζουμε εμείς για τον Αμερικανό Πρεσβευτή?».Το βιογραφικό του σημείωμα είναι παγκοίνως γνωστό σε όλους.

Αυτό όμως που πρέπει να προσδιοριστεί είναι το εάν εξυπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα της Διοίκησης

του Προέδρου Τράμπ η τα συμφέροντα και τα σχέδια των συντελεστών της προηγούμενης του Προέδρου Τράμπ Διοίκησης.

Αυτό αποτελεί και το κλειδί των επικείμενων εξελίξεων στην Ελλάδα.

Ο  Geoffrey R. Pyatt είναι ικανότατος διπλωμάτης και διορίστηκε Πρεσβευτής στην Ελλάδα απο τον

Πρόεδρο Barack Obama.

Στην συνέχεια μετά την εκλογή του Προέδρου Τράμπ εκλήθη στην Ουάσιγκτων οπότε και

επαναβεβαιώθηκε

η τοποθετησή του ως Πρεσβευτή στη Ελλάδα.

Ο ΕΧΩΝ ΝΟΥΝ ΝΟΕΙΝ ΝΟΗΤΩ

 

 

Posted in Barack Obama, FYROM, Ε.Ε., ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ, ΗΠΑ, Μπάρακ Ομπάμα, ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ, ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΙ, ΣΧΟΛΙΑ, Τουρκία, επικαιρότητα, State Department, Turkey | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OBAMA=BRZEZINSKI:ΤΟ ΚΕΝΤΡΟ ΤΗΣ ΙΣΧΥΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ ΑΛΛΑ Η ΜΟΣΧΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΠΕΚΙΝΟ

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουνίου 6, 2013

ΣΕ ΠΡΟΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΟ ΣΗΜΕΙΩΜΑ ΜΕ ΤΙΤΛΟ

«ΑΛΛΑΓΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ-Ο Zbigniew Brzezinski ΑΝΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙ ΤΟΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΟ ΤΗΣ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΗΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ ΜΕ ΕΝΑ ΠΡΑΞΙΚΟΠΗΜΑ ΣΕ SLOW MOTION»

ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΣΑΜΕ ΕΝΑ ΑΡΘΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΟΥ

Webster G. Tarpley

ΟΠΟΥ ΑΝΑΛΥΕΤΟ ΔΙΕΞΟΔΙΚΑ Η ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΗ OBAMA ΠΡΙΝ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΛΟΓΗ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ.

ΣΗΜΕΡΑ Ο OBAMA ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΣΗΜΑ Ο ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ ΜΕ ΟΤΙ ΑΥΤΟ ΣΥΝΕΠΑΓΕΤΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ.

ΕΙΝΑΙ ΕΜΦΑΝΕΣ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΟΤΙ ,ΠΕΡΑ ΑΠΟ

ΤΟΥΣ ΚΑΤΕΥΘΥΝΟΜΕΝΟΥΣ ΠΑΝΗΓΥΡΙΣΜΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΑ «ΟΡΑΜΑΤΑ»  ΤΩΝ ΜΜΕ

Ο ΖΜΠΙΓΚΝΙΟΥ ΜΠΡΕΖΙΝΣΚΙ

ΚΑΙ Η ΟΜΑΔΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΚΑΝΕ ΤΟ ΘΑΥΜΑ ΤΗΣ.

«ΕΞΕΛΕΞΑΝ» ΤΟΝ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟ ΤΟΥΣ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΕΦΑΡΜΟΣΟΥΝ ΤΑ ΣΧΕΔΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΚΥΡΙΑΡΧΙΑ.

ΣΑΣ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΟΥΜΕ ΜΙΑ ΣΥΝΕΝΤΕΥΞΗ ΤΟΥ

Webster G. Tarpley

ΟΠΟΥ ΑΝΑΦΕΡΟΝΤΑΙ ΜΕ ΛΕΠΤΟΜΕΡΕΙΕΣ ΟΙ ΝΕΕΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΕΣ ΤΩΝ ΗΠΑ ΤΩΝ OBAMA-BRZEZINSKI.

ΜΕΡΟΣ 1ον

ΜΕΡΟΣ 2ον

ΟΙ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΟΔΟΤΕΣ

ΤΟΥ OBAMA ΚΑ ΤΟΥ MCCAIN ΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΙ ΙΔΙΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΗΣΑΝ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗ ΚΡΙΣΗ.

OBAMA ΚΑΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ

ΜΙΑ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΕΠΙΒΕΒΑΙΩΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΡΑΠΑΝΩ ΑΠΟΤΕΛΟΥΝ

ΟΙ ΔΗΛΩΣΕΙΣ ΤΟΥ OBAMA ΓΙΑ ΣΥΝΟΜΙΛΙΕΣ

ΜΕ ΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ.

ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΕΠΙΣΗΣ

Μια ρωσική ματιά στον κόσμο της εποχής Ομπάμα.

ΚΑΙ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΟΛΟΚΛΗΡΩΣΟΥΜΕ

ΤΟ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟ ΑΡΘΡΟ ΤΟΥ

Webster Tarpley

11-10-8

Secret Plan For IMF

World Dictatorship

G-20 Summit In DC On 11-15-8

This is a confidential strategy paper for the November 15 G-20 summit in Washington DC. This is not a new Bretton Woods in any sense, but rather a British-steered attempt to impose the dictatorship of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the entire planet, wiping out all hope of economic recovery, the modernization of the developing countries, and national sovereignty at the same time.

Under this plan, the IMF would dictate the economic policies of all states. The IMF orthodoxy is austerity, sacrifice, deregulation, privatization, union busting, wage reductions, free trade, the race to the bottom, and prohibitions on advanced technologies. These policies would strangle humanity.

The Brazil-Russia-India-China bloc is reportedly objecting to putting so much power into the hands of the IMF, which is dominated by the US and the British, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Treasury Secretary Paulson of Goldman Sachs laying down the party line.

The new Chinese economic measures are the opposite of the bankers’ bailouts imposed so far in the wealthier countries. The Chinese will spend $585 billion on infrastructure, transportation, housing, and food production, with special attention to railroads, airports, and roads. The Chinese package is in the spirit of the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal, and it will maintain forward progress for China. The US $700 billion bailout and the UK and EU versions are a futile attempt to prop up the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble. Sensible economic policy starts with wiping out the derivatives cancer.

The interest of humanity can only be served by preventing the Washington conference from carrying out the plan outlined below. If Russia, China, and the developing countries can mount an effective opposition, the world will divide into two blocs – a pro-derivatives, anti-production Malthusian-monetarist bloc, which will tend to fall behind because of its own policies; and, on the other hand, an anti-derivatives, pro-production bloc of nations seeking modern technology, and the full fruits of scienitific and economic progress. Persons of good will in all nations are encouraged to mobilize to make sure that their own country joins the pro-production, anti-derivatives bloc.

Preparations the for economic summit in Washington on November 15 are well advanced. Here are the five points which are currently on the agenda to be adopted by the invited heads of state. The overall philosophy is to continue globalization by reinforcing free trade and by creating a world economic government under the IMF.

The IMF Program Reads As Follows:

1) require the credit rating agencies to be registered and monitored and submit to rules of governance;

2) halt the principle of a convergence of accounting standards and re-examine the application of the fair market value rule in the financial field, so as to improve its coherence with the rules of prudence and conservatism;

3) to resolve that no market segment, territory, or financial institution shall escape from a proportionate and adequate regulation, or at the least, surveillance;

4) set up a code of conduct to avoid excessive risk-taking in the financial industry, including in the area of compensation. Supervisors will have to follow this code in evaluating the risk profiles of financial institutions;

5) to entrust to the IMF the primary responsibility, along with the FSF (Financial Stability Forum – Basel), to recommend the necessary measures to restore confidence and stability.

The IMF must be equipped with the essential resources and suitable instruments to support countries in difficulty, and to exert its role of macroeconomic surveillance to the fullest.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bilderberg, Brzezinski, CFR, China, Ε.Ε., Μπάρακ Ομπάμα, Σόρος, Kosovo, McCain, NWO, Obama, Rothschilds, Soros George, Uncategorized | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Η Πρώην ΥΠΕΞ των ΗΠΑ Albright Κοντά στην Εξαγορά των Τηλεπικοινωνιών του Κοσσόβου

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 28, 2012

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State ...

Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State of the United States of America, at the 2000 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

ΓΡΑΦΕΙ Ο ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΗΤΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΒΑΛΚΑΝΙΩΝ

Με τίτλο «Κόσσοβο και Μετόχια: η αμερικανοποίηση της
ιδιωτικοποίησης»  η διαδικτυακή έκδοση του Β92 αναφέρει ότι η εταιρεία
Albright Capital Management ACM, η οποία ανήκει και διοικείται από την
πρώην υπουργό Εξωτερικών των ΗΠΑ, Madeleine Albright, εκδήλωσε
ενδιαφέρον για την εξαγορά της εταιρείας τηλεπικοινωνιών του Κοσσόβου
PTK.

Αρχικά, 8 εταιρείες  κατέθεσαν τους φακέλους τους για την
ιδιωτικοποίηση της PTK, η οποία έχει 8 εκατομμύρια συνδρομητές κινητής
τηλεφωνίας και 100.000 σταθερής τηλεφωνίας, ενώ προσφέρει και υπηρεσίες
ιντερνέτ. Μετά την ολοκλήρωση της πρώτης φάσης της επιλογής των
υποψηφίων και τη συνεδρίαση της αρμόδιας διυπουργικής επιτροπής στο
Κόσσοβο, αποφασίστηκε η επόμενη φάση στην οποία επικράτησαν 5 εταιρείες,
μεταξύ των οποίων και η ACM και η Telekom Portugal.

Σύμφωνα με το ειδησεογραφικό πρακτορείο Tanjug, η συμμετοχή της
εταιρείας ACM στο διαγωνισμό έγινε δεκτή εξαιτίας του ρόλου που
διαδραμάτισε η ίδια ως ΥΠΕΞ των ΗΠΑ στα γεγονότα του Κοσσόβου το 1998
και 1999. Πάντως, όπως ανακοίνωσε το Υπουργείο Οικονομικής Ανάπτυξης του
Κοσσόβου, όλοι οι υποψήφιοι έχουν τις ίδιες ευκαιρίες !!!!! για
επικράτηση στο διαγωνισμό, εφόσον πληρούν τις νομικές, οικονομικές και
τεχνικές προϋποθέσεις.

Εκτός της ACM ενδιαφέρον για την εξαγορά της  ΡΤΚ έχουν εκδηλώσει
μεταξύ άλλων  η κροατική Telecom (η οποία ανήκει κατά το μεγαλύτερο
κομμάτι της στη γερμανική Deutsche Telekom), η αλβανική ALB Telecom (η
οποία ανήκει στο μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι της στις  τουρκικές Kalik και Turk
Telekom), η αιγυπτιακή Orascom Telecom, η Telekom Austria και η Sabafon
από την Υεμένη. (Β.Δ.)

Αυτές είναι δουλειές – μπίζνες, όπως οι κατασκευαστικές και οι
ενεργειακές, τα συμφέροντα μεγάλα και η διαπλοκή καλά κρατεί. Το
προτεκτοράτο θα εξασφαλίσει σημαντικά κέρδη στους θιασώτες του.

μέσω drougos.gr – Η Πρώην ΥΠΕΞ των ΗΠΑ Albright Κοντά στην Εξαγορά των Τηλεπικοινωνιών του Κοσσόβου.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS: Syria Under Attack by the Mind Managers: The Dark Satanic Mills of Propaganda

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 6, 2012

Syria Under Attack by the Mind Managers: The Dark Satanic Mills of Propaganda

Covering Syria: The Information War
By Aisling Byrne
Originally published in the Asia Times
July 12, 2012
Images and captions added by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics

The narrative that has been constructed by the Western mainstream media on Syria may seem to be self-evident from the scenes presented on television, but it is a narrative duplicitously promoted and coordinated so as to conceal and facilitate the regime-change project that is part of the war on Iran.

What we are seeing is a new stage of information war intentionally constructed and cast as a simplistic narrative of a struggle for human rights and democracy so as deliberately to exclude other interpretations and any geo-strategic motivation.

The narrative, as CNN puts it, is in essence this: «The vast majority of reports from the ground indicate that government forces are killing citizens in an attempt to wipe out civilians seeking [President Bashar] al-Assad’s ouster» – the aim being precisely to elicit a heart-wrenching emotional response in Western audiences that trumps all other considerations and makes the call for Western/Gulf intervention to effect regime change.

But it is a narrative based on distortion, manipulation, lies and videotape.

In the first months, the narrative was of unarmed protesters being shot by Syrian forces. This then evolved into one of armed insurgents reluctantly «being provoked into taking up arms», as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, to defend peaceful protesters.

It was also a narrative that from the outset, according to a recent report in Time magazine, that the US has facilitated by providing training, support and equipment to Syrian opposition «cyber-warriors».

Reports confirmed by leading Syrian opposition leaders in April 2011 reveal that in addition to cyber-training, weapons and money from Syrian exiles, as well as from a «major Arab Gulf country» and a Lebanese political party, were being distributed to «young demonstrators». The former head of Russian intelligence, Yevgeny Primakov, similarly noted that the Syrian conflict «started with armed revolts against the authorities, not peaceful demonstrations».

Ironically, one of the most accurate descriptions of the sectarian conflict we are witnessing in Syria comes from an assessment by the neoconservative Brookings Institute in its March 2012 report «Assessing Options for Regime Change in Syria», one option being for «the United States [to] fight a «clean» war … and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA [Free Syrian Army], perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building».

«Let the Arabs do it,» echoed Israeli President Shimon Peres. «Do it yourself and the UN will support you.» This point was not lost on one leading Turkish commentator, who noted that US Senator John McCain «said that there would be no American boots on the ground in Syria. That means we Turks will have to spill our precious blood to get what McCain and others want in the States.»

In the wake of the failures at state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, direct intervention, with all the responsibilities this would entail, would not go down well in cash-strapped Western nations. Better to get others to do the «dirty work» – pursue «regime change by civil war».

«The United States, Europe and the Gulf states … are starving the regime in Damascus and feeding the opposition. They have sanctioned Syria … and are busy shoveling money and helping arms supplied by the Gulf get to the rebels,» Joshua Landis, director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies, wrote in Foreign Policy in June.
 

With regional allies prepared to do the «dirty work» of providing increasingly sophisticated weapons clearly geared for purposes other than «self-defense», and the FSA and its jihadist allies doing the «dirty work» within Syria (their salaries paid by Saudi Arabia), the US and European nations can proffer their clean hands by limiting support to communications equipment, intelligence and humanitarian aid, and of course to providing the moral posturing required to topple the Syrian system and implant a regime hostile to Iran and friendly to Israel. Having «clean hands» enables the US, France and Britain to pose as abiding by UN standards, while at the same time flouting the UN Charter by promoting an attack on a member state.


Time magazine reported last month that the administration of US President Barack Obama «has tiptoed across an invisible line. [It] said it will not actively support the Syrian opposition in its bid to oust Assad … [but] as US officials have revealed, the administration has been providing media-technology training and support to Syrian dissidents by way of small non-profits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House.

«Viral videos of alleged atrocities,» noted Time, «have made Assad one of the most reviled men on the planet, helping turn the Arab League against him and embarrassing his few remaining allies almost daily.»

It is a position that reeks of hypocrisy: as US columnist Barbara Slavin notes, «Without a UN Security Council mandate, the prospects for US military intervention in Syria are minimal … the provision of communications gear frees up others to provide weapons.»

A US official quoted by Associated Press was more frank: Washington’s equipment and medical supplies to the opposition «can now be easily augmented with weapons from other donors. Smuggling lines are smuggling lines. We use the same donkeys,» he said, pointing out that routes are in essence the same for bandages as they are for bullets.

And while various Western governments are helping «document crimes» committed by Syrian forces, these same governments have refused to investigate their own killings of civilians in attacks by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya. NATO «created its own definition for ‘confirmed’ deaths: only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed», enabling the alliance to conclude: «We have no confirmed reports of civilian casualties.»

Britain was the only country involved in the bombings to conduct its own inquiry. Its report accepted «that coalition forces did their best to prevent and minimize civilian casualties … We commend them for this approach.»

Marie Colvin

For every tragic story like journalist Marie Colvin’s final dispatch before she was killed while embedded for British media with the FSA («In Babr Amr. Sickening. Cannot understand how the world can stand by. Watched a baby die today. Shrapnel: doctors could do nothing. His little tummy just heaved and heaved until he stopped. Feeling Helpless»), there are other similar tragedies, committed by the insurgents, that are rarely reported in the mainstream Western press.

You won’t read in the mainstream press of foreign jihadists increasingly pouring into Syria to fight their holy war; you won’t read that some ultraconservative Salafi sheikhs in Saudi Arabia are running their own military network inside Syria; you won’t read how Assad’s support during the 14-month crisis has if anything increased in light of the insecurity gripping the country; you won’t read comments like those of the Lebanese Christian Maronite patriarch who said that while «Syria, like other countries, needs reforms which the people are demanding … the closest thing to democracy [in the Arab world] is Syria».

You won’t read how the head of the opposition in Turkey, a former ambassador to Washington, Faruk Logoglu, has said that what Turkey is doing hosting armed FSA fighters and allowing them to carry out attacks in Syria is «is against all international norms; against all neighborly relations … It is a basic rule that countries must respect the sovereignty of others.»

You won’t read how armed insurgents used the Arab League observer mission’s ceasefire to «reinforce themselves and bring supplies from Lebanon, knowing the regime would be limited in its ability to obstruct them at that time», or how they have used the Kofi Annan plan to prepare for larger attacks.

While we have seen extensive demonization of Assad, his wife and family, with the president depicted recently in the British press bathing in blood, you won’t read articles demonizing the Saudi or Qatari regimes, or highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars they have poured into political parties and groups, particularly Salafists, across the region in their «counter-revolution» against change; or the recent declaration by the official Saudi Mufti for all churches in the Arabian Peninsula to be demolished (which was not covered by a single Western mainstream news outlet); or as a senior Sunni political figure told me recently, the more than 23,000 detainees in Saudi prisons, a majority of whom (a recent report notes 90%) have degrees (to be fair, Chatham House did comment on this in a recent report that this «is indicative of the prevalence of a university education»).

The images above are only some of what we find when we do an image search for «Assad» and «bloodbath.»  Seriously.  Who has commissioned these bullshit images?  Someone has obviously been paid to make them.  Someone has obviously written a check to have each of them made.  We say to the many producers, «Ye are of your father the devil…there is no truth in him…he is a liar, and a father of it.»

You won’t read how Saudi Arabia and Qatar have bullied satellite hosting channels in the region to stop broadcasting «pro-regime» public and private Syrian television channels; or that the Syrian opposition has set up 10 satellite channels, all with an Islamist orientation and which take a strong sectarian line – calling on the FSA to «kill Iran’s mice» and «the rats of the Lebanese devil’s party» (Hezbollah); or how Russia has been attempting to facilitate a political process of reconciliation with the internal opposition since the onset of the crisis.

There is clear duplicity in the deliberate unwillingness of the Western mainstream media to acknowledge the nature of those who are the West’s allies in the regime-change project – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – and the danger they pose in the region through their arming and firing up of jihadist Salafist groups in Syria and across the region. Rare are articles in the mainstream Western press that highlight this hypocrisy.
 

A critical piece in the British press by Peter Oborne, The Daily Telegraph’s chief political correspondent, was an exception: «Washington never ceases to complain about the connection between the Pakistani intelligence services and the Taliban. But we never hear a whisper of concern about the connection between Saudi intelligence and Salafi movements across the Middle East, of which al-Qaeda is the best-known offshoot.»


The essential components of what we do see daily in the Western press have changed little during the conflict: in effect, all violence and terror are apportioned to one side only – the Syrian government and its purported «ghostly shadowy» shabiha forces.

Any violence committed by the «peaceful protesters» and the Free Syrian Army is purely for defensive purposes – all of which comes straight out of the color-revolution/regime-change text book; daily figures for those killed are based almost exclusively on «reports by activists and YouTube footage» (unverifiable, it is claimed, because the Syrian government does not allow free movement of journalists) and are described simply as «people» – dead insurgents do not appear; Al-Qaeda-type jihadist groups are played down (reports in leading media outlets like The Guardian continue to question whether they exist at all); and any weapons or equipment supplied to the «opposition» is, according to Saudi leaders, to help Syrians «defend themselves».

Embedding journalists on their side is an asset that the FSA, activists and their Western and regional partners have clearly learned from the experience of the US Army in the wake of its attacks on Fallujah in 2004. A US Army intelligence analysis leaked by WikiLeaks revealed that «in the military’s opinion, the Western press are part of the US’s propaganda operation. This process was facilitated by the embedding of Western reporters in US military units». In their second attack on Fallujah in November 2004, the US Army «got many reporters … to embed with US troops, so that they could act, as the intelligence report calls for, as the propaganda arm of US forces».

The fundamental pillar of this Western narrative relies almost exclusively on claims and «evidence» provided by «activists» and opposition-affiliated groups, particularly the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Are we seriously to believe that this outfit, reportedly run from Coventry by a man who, according to Reuters, part-time runs a clothes shop with his wife, then «sits with a laptop and phones and pieces together accounts of conflict and rights abuses before uploading news to the Internet», is the primary source of daily casualty statistics on the 14-month Syrian conflict – the key geo-strategic conflict of the time?

Readers!!  This man is head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and he is starving!  Can you spare 25 bucks for a large pizza?   He is the lone wolf fighting Assad…from London…  Obviously this is your cause.

It is clearly the front office of a large-scale (dis)information project – when Russian diplomats asked to meet with the organization, they were refused. Senior political figures in the region have told me, as other reports indicate, that the Observatory is in fact funded from a Dubai-based slush fund and is a key component of the regime-change project.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that it was in the opposition’s interest «to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe, to get a pretext to demand external interference», so it is not surprising that analysis of the Observatory’s figures, including claims of «massacres», consistently show a significant inflation in numbers of casualties, sometimes wildly so. 

As Al-Jazeera journalist Nir Rosen, who spent some months embedded with the Free Syria Army, explained: «Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many … reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described … as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.»


Analysis I did of what was reported to be the «deadliest day of the nine-month uprising» (December 20, 2011), with the «organized massacre» of a «mass defection» of army deserters widely reported by the international press, and opposition Syrian National Council claims of areas «exposed to large-scale genocide», showed that figures differed so significantly (between 10 and 163 armed insurgents, nine to 111 unarmed civilians and zero to 97 government forces), that the «truth» was impossible to establish. Similarly, analysis of The Guardian’s data blog on casualties as of December 2011, based solely on press reports largely from opposition sources, contained basic inaccuracies and made no reference to any killings of armed insurgents during the entire 10-month period.

So the Observatory and «activists» provide doctored figures, the Western media report these figures uncritically, and the UN provides reports on the basis of opposition and activist sources alone. The December 2011 UN Human Rights Commissioner’s report was based solely on interviews with 233 alleged «army defectors»; similarly, the first UN report to accuse the Syrian government of crimes against humanity was based on 369 interviews with «victims and witnesses». The spokesman for the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights explained that while «getting evidence from victims and defectors – some who corroborated specific names», the UN «is not in a position to cross-check names and will never be in a position to do that … The lists are clear – the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy.»

British public-service broadcaster Channel 4 has championed the cause of Syrian «video journalists» who it claims are leading a «Syrian media revolution». The channel’s foreign-affairs correspondent Jonathan Miller wrote: «Each report is datelined; exact location and date, [which] doesn’t in itself necessarily authenticate the report, but combined with other reports from other districts of the same attack filmed from a different location, the reports have the effect of corroborating each other.» The channel even made a documentary of activists exaggerating the «truth» – «even if it means embellishing events».

During the early months of the Syrian conflict, activists like the now-notorious Danny and Khaled Abou Salah were regularly interviewed in the Western media – that is until footage found by the Syrian army in Homs after the attack on insurgents showed them, among other things, preparing child «victims» for interviews and until their «witness statements» lost all credibility. The New York Times’ Neil MacFarquhar, reporting from Beirut, almost exclusively bases his reports on «activists speaking by Skype» and «video posted on YouTube».

New York Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar showing signs of moral turpitude beneath his usual «objective journalist» veneer.

Described as «the most horrific video» yet by Britain’s Daily Mail, a YouTube clip of an opposition member being «buried alive» was found most likely to be fake. Perhaps more telling than the use of the actual photo by the British Broadcasting Corp of hundreds of body bags from Iraq in 2003 that was used for the story of the al-Houla massacre three weeks ago was the caption beneath the photo: «Photo from Activist. This image – which cannot be independently verified – is believed to show bodies of children in Houla awaiting funeral.»

Anatomy of a psyop (click on images to enlarge): the top image is a screen shot of the BBC’s  «Houla Massacre» story (May 27, 2012).  The striking image was used by the BBC to sell this «massacre» to the world.  The perpetrators of the supposed «massacre» were immediately reported by Western news agencies (without real evidence we soon learned) to have been members of the Syrian army.  Notice the attribution «photo from activist» at the bottom of the top image above.  Is this why the image was deemed sufficient by «journalists» and numerous «news agencies» to accompany their reportage of the event?  Whatever the case, use of this image has helped, in the court of public opinion, turn the legal government of Syria into «butchers of its own people.»  It turns out that, within 24 hours of the story breaking, the image above was discovered to have been taken in Iraq in 2003 in a town called Al Musayyib (the 2nd and 3rd images attest to this fact) by a photographer named Marco Di Lauro!! 

This psyop is one of many reasons why the majority of us in the West, without having spent one single day on Syrian soil, without knowing a damn thing about the Syrian political system, its history, its triumphs or challenges, what it’s up against …nothing… we find ourselves HATING Assad…he is a butcher…he is a murderer…he is evil…  We parrot those blood-sucking reporters on television…and the countless vampires who write the editorial columns of newspapers (those we know are war mongering whores) …and yet we STILL parrot THESE PEOPLE and say, without hesitation, that it’s imperative that Assad must go!    

Nevertheless, activist-supplied videos and statements continue to provide the basis for unquestioned reports in the mainstream press: in the wake of the Houla massacre, for example, The Guardian ran a front-page story – «among the most important of the testimonies» from an army defector reportedly on leave at the time. From his house 300 meters away, the man saw and heard the massacre, despite there being persistent shelling at the time. He claimed to have seen men «he knew to be shabiha «riding into Taldous village in cars, motorbikes and army trucks, shouting: ‘Shabiha forever, for your eyes, Assad.'»

This is not to argue that Syrian security forces and some supporters of the Syrian government have not committed abuses and killings; they have admitted this to be the case. «Don’t put me in a position of defending brutality and knifing people,» former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said about Syria recently. «Frankly that is not the issue. We do know these things happened, and they are horrible. They also happened on a much larger scale in many other countries in which we have not intervened.»
 

What we are witnessing is a new generation of warfare – an information war where, by using what is in effect propaganda, the aim is to construct a consensual consciousness to provide overwhelming public support for regime change.


Not to be outdone by Senator McCain (described by a leading US foreign-policy magazine as one of the «three amigos … who have rarely found a country they didn’t want to bomb or invade»), The Guardian itself noted in March: «If you think Guardian readers are a peace-loving bunch, think again. In an online poll, more than 83% [13,200 votes] have so far backed John McCain’s call to launch air strikes against Syria.»

While The Guardian describes the so-called shabihain what appears to be a piece of pure propaganda – «according to demonstrators» it interviewed – as «large lines of plain-clothed or khaki-clad men and boys armed with submachine-guns» who appear «awaiting an excuse to intervene» and who fire on protesters, a senior European diplomat based in the region told me that it is not in fact clear who the shabiha are, or whether they actually exist.

The diplomat told me of an instance when the UN monitors were filmed by activists as they were inspecting an insurgent-blocked subsidiary road; they later saw footage of themselves at the same ditch on the international news spliced in such a way as to make it appear that there had been bodies in an excavated area and that the UN monitors were watching bodies being removed, whereas in fact it was no more than a ditch across a road that they had been filming.

Human rights are a fundamental component of this information war that is a cover for regime change. By in effect taking a one-sided approach to events in Syria, leading human-rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are, willingly or unwillingly, being used as an integral part of this information war on Syria.

Despite publishing the odd report on abuses, torture and killings perpetrated by the insurgents, they cast the conflict in Syria as a simple one-sided case of aggressors and victims, lamenting, along the lines of John Bolton and McCain, «Why is the world doing nothing?» Amnesty International’s Eyes on Syria site, for example, exclusively documents «the scale of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, army and pro-government armed gangs», harassment of «pro-reform» Syrians, and deaths in government custody.

A notable exception has been the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has continually criticized the militarization of humanitarian assistance. When former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for the creation of «humanitarian corridors», the ICRC publicly criticized a move that would inevitably involve the deployment of armed forces to enforce the zones.

The use of propaganda as a tool in war is an old one. During World War I, in the wake of British propaganda of «babies [with] their hands cut off … impaled on bayonets … loudly spoken of in buses and public places … paraded, not as an isolated instance of an atrocity, but as … a common practice», a member of Parliament wrote: «In Parliament there was the usual evasion … the only evidence given was ‘seen by witnesses’.»

What we see now in coverage of Syria has echoes of 2003 – Western governments and the Western media accept at face value the claims of exiles living in the West. Paul Pillar, a former official of the US Central Intelligence Agency now at Georgetown University in Washington, notes that the neocon case for arming the Syrian opposition «is a continuation of the same patterns of neoconservative thinking that led to [president George W] Bush’s war [on Iraq]. There is the same wishful thinking substituting for careful analysis about consequences.»

Charged with defining the future of warfare, the US deputy chief of staff for intelligence [pictured below] in 1997 defined this «conflict between information masters and information victims … We are already masters of information warfare … we write the script,» he wrote. «Societies that … cannot manage the flow of information simply will not be competitive … Emotions, rather than strategy, will set the terms of struggles.» Against such an onslaught, there is little the Syrian government can do to defend itself – Assad has already said that Syria cannot win the media war with the West.

«Emotions, rather than strategy, will set the terms of struggles.»  So wrote Ralph Peters in his infamous article, Constant Conflict, published in the summer of 1997.  Perhaps it’s also helpful to point out that this same Ralph Peters was also the author of a new map of the Middle East, one where the boundaries of extant nation-states have been dramatically redrawn, made into smaller, ethnically homogeneous, and doubtlessly less independent «micro-states.»

As Syria tips into the next more violent stage of sectarian war, with the SNC/FSA and their foreign backers increasing the ante with possible supplies if heavy weapons by the US, leading to more violent attacks, and the Syrian government (with its Republican Guard and the Syrian Army’s powerful 4th Division still held in reserve) cracking down on «all armed groups», we should expect to see the «crusaders» in the mainstream media follow suit with their onslaught on Syrian government «atrocities» – massacres, use of children as human shields, claims of the imminent collapse of the Syrian government, etc.

But we would do well to acknowledge that there are two competing narratives out there. The BBC acknowledged recently that while «video filed by the opposition … may provide some insight into the story on the ground … stories are never black and white – [they are] often shades of grey», and Channel 4’s Alex Thomson’s near escape after being set up by the Free Syria Army prompted him to say: «Do not for one moment believe that my experience with the rebels in al-Qusair was a one-off.» It makes you wonder, he wrote, «who else has had this experience when attempting to find out what is going on in rebel-held Syria». The narrative, however, complete with myths, has established a virtual reality that is now set in stone.

Sixteen months into the conflict, it is too little, too late to acknowledge that there are «shades of grey» at play in the Syrian context: for 16 months, The Guardian, Channel 4, the BBC and others have presented the conflict, using largely spurious «evidence», in exactly the black-and-white terms that increasingly people are now questioning. Peter Oborne, writing some months ago in The Daily Telegraph, warned that by presenting the conflict as a struggle between the regime and «the people», British Prime Minister David Cameron is either «poorly briefed or he is coming dangerously close to a calculated deception of the British public».

The Takfiri jihadists and their backers have been allowed to define and dominate the crisis. The crisis is now symbolized by car bombings, assassinations, mutilations and atrocities. This empowering of the extreme end of the opposition spectrum – albeit a minority – has in effect silenced and pushed to the sidelines the middle ground – that is, most of the internal opposition. One key internal opposition leader recently told Conflicts Forum that, like other leaders, he has had close relatives assassinated by the Salafists. The internal opposition has acknowledged the stark choice between two undesirables – either a dialogue that currently is not realizable, or the downfall of Syria, as Al-Akhbar, one of the leading independent newspapers in the region, recently reported.

With weapons of war, words and ideology, the self-appointed «Friends of Syria» have done everything they can to tiptoe around the UNSC and to undercut all attempts at an intra-Syrian political dialogue and a negotiated end to the conflict, of which the Annan mission is the latest attempt. The West/Saudi/Qatari «dirty war» on Syria applies as much to its (dis)information campaign as it does to getting others to fight and kill for them.

As was no doubt the intention, Clinton’s «spin» that Russia was supplying attack helicopters to Syria went a long way – the US Congress, the British government and the mainstream media all fell into line calling for action. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote to the US defense secretary calling the Russian state arms firm «an enabler of mass murder in Syria», and Cobra, the British government’s emergency security committee, met several times.

It turned out, however, that what the New York Times described as «the Obama administration’s sharpest criticism yet of Russia’s support for the Syrian government» was, according to a senior Defense Department official, «a little spin» put on the story by Clinton so as «to put the Russians in a difficult position». It was three helicopters of «marginal use militarily», explained the Times, returning from routine servicing in Russia.

For their part, the mainstream media bear some responsibility for the slide toward sectarian war in Syria, the victims of which, as always, are civilians. The media’s conceptualization of victims and oppressors has in effect eliminated the space for negotiation. Lavrov has warned: «Either we gather everyone with influence at the negotiating table or once again we depart into ideology, where it is declared shamelessly that everything is the fault of the regime, while everyone else are angels and therefore the regime should be changed.

«The way the Syrian crisis is resolved», he advised, «will play an important role in the world tomorrow; whether the world will be based on the UN Charter, or a place where might makes right.»

μέσω COLOR REVOLUTIONS AND GEOPOLITICS: Syria Under Attack by the Mind Managers: The Dark Satanic Mills of Propaganda.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Venezuela: A Threat to Washington? | empirestrikesblack

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 6, 2012

by Eva Golinger, Thursday, July 19, 2012.

From the first time Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998, Washington and its allies have been trying to undermine his government. When Chavez was just a presidential candidate, the US State Department denied his visa to participate in television interviews in Miami. Later, when he won the presidential elections, Ambassador John Maisto called him personally to congratulate him and offer him a visa. The following months were filled with attempts to “buy” the newly elected President of Venezuela. Businessmen, politicians and heads of state from Washington and Spain pressured him to submit to their agendas. “Come with us”, urged Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, trying to seduce him with offers of wealth and luxury in turn for obeying orders.

When Chavez refused to be bought, he was ousted in a coup d’etat April 11, 2002, funded and planned by Washington. When the coup failed and Chavez’s supporters rescued their democracy and president in less than 48 hours, attempts to destabilize his government continued. “We must make it difficult for him to govern”, said former US State Department chief Lawrence Eagleberger.

Soon, Venezuela was overrun with economic sabotage, oil industry strikes, chaos in the streets and a brutal media war that distorted the reality of the country on a national and international level. A plan to assassinate Chavez with Colombian paramilitaries in May 2004 was impeded by state security forces. Months later, the US-backed opposition tried to revoke his mandate in a recall referendum, but again, the people saved him in a 60-40 landslide victory.

The more popular Chavez became, the more millions of dollars flowed from US agencies to anti-Chavez groups to destabilize, descredit, delegitimize, overthrow, assassinate or remove him from power by any means possible. In December 2006, Chavez was reelected president with 64% of the vote. His approval rating grew in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. New governments in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Uruguay and several Caribbean nations joined regional initiatives of integration, cooperation, sovereignty and unity, encouraged by Caracas. Washington began to lose its influence and control over its former “backyard”.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), PetroCaribe, PetroSur, TeleSUR, Bank of ALBA, Bank of the South and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) were created. Washington isn’t included in any of these organizations, nor is the elite that previously dominated the region.

In January 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Chavez was a “negative force” in the region. In March, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) placed Venezuela on their list of “Top 5 Hot Spots”. A few months later, Reverend Pat Robertson publicly called for the assassination of Chavez, claiming it would cost less than “a $2 billion war”. That same year, when Venezuela suspended cooperation with the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) because it was found committing acts of espionage and sabotage, Washington classified Venezuela as a nation “not cooperating with counter-narcotics” efforts. No evidence was presented to show alleged Venezuelan government ties to drug trafficking.

In February 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte referred to Venezuela as a “dangerous threat” to the US. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled compared Chavez to Hitler. That same year, Washington created a special intelligence mission dedicated to Venezuela and Cuba, increasing resources for operations against them. In June 2006, the White House placed Venezuela on a list of countries “not cooperating sufficiently with the war on terror”. The classification included a sanction prohibiting the sale of military and defense equipment from the US and US companies or those using US technology to Venezuela. No evidence was ever shown to back such serious claims.

In 2008, the Pentagon reactivated its Fourth Fleet, the regional command in charge of Latin America and the Caribbean. It had been deactivated in 1950 and hadn’t functioned since then, until Washington decided it was necessary to increase its presence and “force” in the region. In 2010, the US established an agreement with Colombia to set up 7 military bases in its territory. An official US Air Force document justified the budget increase for these bases in order to counter the “threat from anti-American governments in the region”.

International media call Chavez a dictator, tyrant, authoritarian, narco, anti-American, terrorist, but they never present proof for such dangerous titles. They have converted the image of Venezuela into violence, insecurity, crime, corruption and chaos, failing to mention the incredible achievements and social advances during the last decade, or the causes of the social inequalities left behind from previous governments.

For years, a group of US congress members – democrats and republicans – have tried to place Venezuela on their list of “state sponors of terrorism”. They claim the relationships between Venezuela and Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, and even Venezuela and China evidence the “grave threat” represented by the South American nation to Washington.

They say again and again that Venezuela and Chavez are threats to the US. “He must be stopped”, they say, before he “launches Iranian bombs against us”.

In an interview a few days ago, President Barack Obama said Chavez was not a threat to US security. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he was. The ire of the Miami Cuban-Venezuelan community came down upon Obama. But they shouldn’t worry, because Obama increased funding to anti-Chavez groups this year. More than $20 million in US taxpayer dollars have been channelled from US agencies to help fund the opposition’s campaign in Venezuela.

Is Venezuela a threat to Washington? In Venezuela, the only “terrorists” are the groups trying to destabilize the country, the majority with political and financial support from the US. The drug traffickers are in Colombia, where the production and transit of drugs has increased during the US invasion disguised as Plan Colombia. Relations with Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and the rest of the world are normal bilateral – and multilateral – ties between countries. There are no bombs, no attack plans, no sinister secrets.

No, Venezuela is not that kind of threat to Washington.

Poverty has been reduced by more than 50% since Chavez came to power in 1998. The inclusionary policies of his government have created a society with mass participation in economic, political and social decisions. His social programs – called missions – have guaranteed free medical care and education, from basic to advanced levels, and provided basic food items at affordable costs, along with tools to create and maintain cooperatives, small and medium businesses, community organizations and communes. Venezuelan culture has been rescued and treasured, recovering national pride and identity, and creating a sentiment of dignity instead of inferiority. Communication media have proliferated during the last decade, assuring spaces for the expression of all.

The oil industry, nationalized in 1976 but operating as a private company, has been recuperated for the benefit of the country, and not for multinationals and the elite. Over 60% of the annual budget is dedicated to social programs in the country, with the principal focus on eradicating poverty.

Caracas, the capital, has been beautified. Parks and plazas have turned into spaces for gatherings, enjoyment and safety for visitors. There’s music in the streets, art on the walls and a rich debate of ideas amongst inhabitants. The new communal police works with neighborhoods to battle crime and violence, addressing problems from the root cause.

The awakening in Venezuela has expanded throughout the continent and northward into the Caribbean. The sensation of sovereignty, independence and union in the region has buried the shadow of subdevelopment and subordination imposed by colonial powers during centuries past.

No, Venezuela is not a threat to US security. Venezuela is an example of how a rising people, facing the most difficult obstacles and the brutal force of empire, can build a model where social justice reigns, and human prosperity is cherished above economic wealth. Venezuela is a country where millions once invisible are today, visible. Today they have a voice and the power to decide the future of their country, without being strangled by foreign hands. Today, thanks to the revolution led by President Chavez, Venezuela is one of the happiest countries in the world.

That is the threat Chavez and Venezuela represent to Washington: The threat of a good example.

μέσω Venezuela: A Threat to Washington? | empirestrikesblack.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 6, 2012

THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT

The Globalist Agenda For Africa And The Middle East


MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST – NORTH AFRICA
PROJECT FOR A NEW MIDDLE EAST
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT
ARAB SPRING
THE SABAN-BROOKINGS PLAN FOR REGIME CHANGE IN SYRIA
SNIPERS AND DEATH SQUADS: TERROR TACTICS OF US SOFT POWER
GOING ROGUE: AMERICA’S UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
MIDDLE EAST-NORTH AFRICAN INITIATIVE: AN OVERVIEW
THE BALKANIZATION OF SUDAN: THE REDRAWING OF THE ME AND NORTH AFRICA
DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL AND LIBYA: PREPARING FOR THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
DEMOCRACY PROMOTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
JUMPSTARTING THE PROCESS OF ARAB REFORM
COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON THE GMEI
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE: REGIME CHANGE, NEOLIBERALISM AND US GLOBAL HEGEMONY
LIBYA, SYRIA AND THE WESTERN AGENDA
TURKEY’S POSITION IN THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT
THE IMPACT OF THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE ON THE PERSIAN GULF
AMERICA, RUSSIA AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST
GLOBALIZATION AND THE WAR ON LIBYA [I – III]
CIA-NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL: MAPPING THE GLOBAL FUTURE
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION FOR A GREATER MIDDLE EAST [I – III]
PREPARING FOR THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
THE BLOODY ROAD TO DAMASCUS: THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE’S WAR ON A SOVEREIGN STATE
THE ROAD TO TEHRAN GOES THROUGH DAMASCUS
THE SECRET WARS OF THE SAUDI-ISRAELI ALLIANCE
TARGETING SYRIA: CIA-MI6 REVISIT 1957 ATTACK PLANS
BERNARD-HENRY LEVY’S “SOS SYRIE” CONFERENCE:  ZIONISTS, MUSLIM BROTHERS AND CHANGE AGENTS
BERNARD HENRI-LEVY DECLARES WAR ON ASSAD
THE DESTABILIZATION OF SYRIA AND THE BROADER MIDDLE EAST WAR
SYRIA: A CONSPIRACY REVEALED
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: PLAN TO TAKE OUT 7 COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS
LIBYA AND SYRIA: NEOCON PLAN TO ATTACK 7 COUNTRIES IN 5 YEARS
THE DECISION TO ATTACK SYRIA WAS MADE AT CAMP DAVID IN 2001
TARGETING SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AND BLACK LIBYANS: THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” IS ON THE MARCH
R2P AND IMPERIAL DOCTRINE
THE OLD IMPERIALIST PROJECT TO DIVIDE LIBYA IN THREE HAS BEEN EXECUTED
AN IMPERIALIST PROJECT TO CREATE THREE LIBYAS
GLOBALIZATION AND THE WAR ON LIBYA SERIES – PARTS I-III
THE LABRYNTHINE INTERNATIONAL GEOPOLITICS OF THE LIBYAN CONFLICT
PARTITION OF LIBYA UNDERWAY?
THE IMPERIAL ANATOMY OF AL-QAEDA: THE CIA’S DRUG RUNNING TERRORISTS AND THE ARC OF CRISIS
CREARING AN ‘ARC OF CRISIS’: THE DESTABILIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA
GLOBAL POWER AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT [PARTS I-III]
SYRIA’S TRUE FRIENDS AND EFFECTIVE RESISTANCE TO THE GMEI
SYRIA’S DAY AFTER: IMPERIALIST PLANS FOR POST-ASSAD SYRIA
IRAQ REDUX: THE COMING US-NATO OCCUPATION OF NORTHERN SYRIA
IS TURKEY IMPLEMENTING THE BROOKING’S PLAN?
SYRIA, YEMEN AND AMERICA’S QUEST FOR IMPERIAL DOMINANCE
WELCOME TO THE “KURDISH SPRING”

μέσω THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT « Syria 360°.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The UN’s Agenda 21 And How It Is Changing America « Hidden Agendas

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουλίου 28, 2012

3x3 rondsLamiotWikimediaCommons

3×3 rondsLamiotWikimediaCommons (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Published on Jul 25, 2012 by PatMcCarthy420

A very special thanks to the John Birch Society.

This video explains the UN’s Agenda 21 and how it wants to establish a worldwide communist/socialist government under the guise of environmental regulations and “green” agendas. I pray that we exit the UN as soon as possible before we lose our national sovereignty.

μέσω The UN’s Agenda 21 And How It Is Changing America « Hidden Agendas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The End of the Bernanke Put is Here | ZeroHedge

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουλίου 17, 2012

End the Federal Reserve

End the Federal Reserve (Photo credit: r0b0r0b)

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History (Photo credit: CityGypsy11)

Folks, the political game has changed in the US. The Fed is no longer invulnerable. In this climate more QE cannot possibly happen. End of story. Indeed, if the Fed were to launch QE at any time between now and the election, Obama is DONE. The last possibly chance for QE without it being a clear hand-out to Obama (and a gift from the political gods to Romney) was June. The Fed passed on that.

ΣΥΝΕΧΕΙΑ ΕΔΩ

μέσω The End of the Bernanke Put is Here | ZeroHedge.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ΡΩΣΙΑ,ΚΙΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΙΡΑΝ ΣΧΕΔΙΑΖΟΥΝ ΤΕΡΑΣΤΙΑ ΣΤΡΑΤΙΩΤΙΚΑ ΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΑ ΣΤΗΝ ΣΥΡΙΑ-Russia, China, Iran plan to stage in Syria “biggest Mid East maneuver”

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουνίου 18, 2012

Middle East military tensions around Syria shot up again Monday, June 18, with the news reported by the semi-official Iranian news agency Fars that a joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian exercise is to take place in Syria.

It was described as “the biggest of its kind ever staged in the Middle East” with 90,000 personnel, 400 air planes and 900 tanks taking part.

As part of its preparations, Beijing is reported to have asked Egyptian authorities to permit the passage through the Suez Canal in late June of 12 naval ships heading for the Syrian port of Tartus, where Moscow maintains a naval and marine base. debkafile reported earlier this week that Russian naval vessels with marines on board were heading for Tartus. The Iranian media did not itemize their contribution to the joint exercise.

debkafile stresses that this would be the first time that substantial Russian and Chinese military strength has ever been deployed in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East. It means that the two powers are prepared to parade their unabashed partnership with the Iranian and Syrian armies for the shared purpose of obstructing US-European-Arab military intervention in Syria. A large-scale Russian and Chinese military presence in the embattled country would expect to deter the United States from leading a military operation against Bashar Assad and his regime.

No date was attached to the report but the exercise may possibly take place before the end of the month

The large-scale maneuver was announced in Tehran on the first day of the nuclear crisis talks in Moscow between Iran and the six world powers, their third attempt to resolve the crisis by diplomacy. However, Russian and Iranian sources close to the talks were pessimistic about progress. An Iranian delegation member complained the atmosphere was harsh and unconstructive. A Russian source saw no way of bridging US-led Western differences with Tehran when the parties reconvene Monday.

debkafile also notes that the big joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian exercise “at sea, air and land on Syrian soil,” ws released for publication shortly before US President Barack Obama was due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Mexico.

via Russia, China, Iran plan to stage in Syria “biggest Mid East maneuver”.

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Russia flies anti-air, anti-ship missiles to Assad as its fleet heads to Tartus

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουνίου 17, 2012

no-fly zone 

Russian marine landing craft

Moscow is using the time up until Russian President Vladimir Putin faces US President Barack Obama across the G20 conference table in Los Cabos, Mexico Sunday, June 17 – or in its corridors – to ship sophisticated arms to Syria able to prevent a no-fly zone and a fleet of warships to the Mediterranean port of Tartus.
While Pentagon sources Friday disclosed the approach of a “small contingent” of Russian warships to Tartus, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources have discovered that heading for the Russian base at this Syrian port is a Russian fleet that includes Ropucha-toad or Project 775 class landing-craft carrying Russian marines. Each craft can carry 250 marine personnel and 500-ton armored vehicles.
And flying overhead are Russian air transports that are touching down at Syrian air bases bearing, according to our sources, a variety of sophisticated munitions for the Syrian army: advanced Russian Pantsyr-S1 anti-air missiles capable of hitting fighter-bombers flying at an altitude of 12 kilometers and cruise missiles; self-propelled medium range anti-air Buk-M2 missiles (NATO codenamed SA-11). They are capable of downing aircraft flying at an altitude of 14 kilometers and Mach 32 speed; and shore-based Bastion anti-ship missiles which can reach vessels sailing 300 kilometers out to sea.

Russia is, in a word, supplying Bashar Assad, his regime and his army, with the very weapons they may need for warding off Western and Arab air efforts to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, while at the same time enabling him to repel seaborne assaults by his foes from the Mediterranean.
Since Syrian units have not been trained in the use of these advanced weapons, they are mostly likely coming with Russian technical teams to operate them – although they would be presented as “instructors.”
The Russians are not trying to conceal their military intervention in Syria in support of the Assad regime.
Friday, June 16, Anatoly P. Isaykin, director of Rosoboronexport (the Russian state arms export authority) said quite openly: I would like to say these mechanisms are really good means of defense, a reliable defense against attacks from air or sea. This is not a threat, but whoever is planning an attack should think about this.” The next day, Saturday, a source in the Russian General Staff told the Itar-Tass government news agency, “Several warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, including large landing ships with marines aboard, are fully prepared to take to the sea in case it is necessary to protect the Russian logistics base in Tartus, Syria, since it is a zone of the Fleet’s responsibility.”

debkafile’s sources in Washington, Moscow and the Persian Gulf expect the Russian and US presidents to get together in the course of the G20 summit for a meeting that will determine whether or not the US and its European and Arab allies go forward with their planned military intervention in Syria.
Agreement between the two presidents on their Syria and Iran policies could arrest this plan, whereas their failure to agree would quicken its pace.

Russia flies anti-air, anti-ship missiles to Assad as its fleet heads to Tartus.

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Αρέσει σε %d bloggers: