ΝΕΑ ΧΩΡΙΣ ΦΙΛΤΡΟ ΦΕΛΛΟΥ

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

Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

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 »

Ο ΚΟΣΜΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΧΕΙΛΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ? – A World On The Verge Of War?

Posted by satyrikon στο Σεπτεμβρίου 16, 2012

Revolutionary Guards

Revolutionary Guards (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is a summary of where the world stands:

From Reuters:

Posted in ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΟΤΗΤΑ, επικαιρότητα | Με ετικέτα: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

ΟΙ ΔΡΟΜΟΙ ΤΟΥ ΙΣΡΑΗΛ ΓΙΑ ΑΕΡΟΠΟΡΙΚΟ ΧΤΥΠΗΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΙΡΑΝ-Israel’s Iran Strike Routes | ZeroHedge

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 22, 2012

Israeli air force pilot

Israeli air force pilot (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The jury is still out whether Israel will or will not attack Iran, despite the endless and relentless (dis)information in the media from all sides, and certainly when such an attack might happen, but if it did take place, these are all the logistically possible formats what an airborne attack could look like.

Via Stratfor:

A unilateral strike on the Iranian nuclear program is not Israel’s preferred option. However, if Israel does decide to proceed with the mission unilaterally, the different routes the strike package could take each pose unique challenges. Currently, the Israeli air force has three principal routes to its targets in Iran. The first route involves flying northward over the eastern Mediterranean Sea between Cyprus and Syria, and then proceeding eastward along the Turkey-Syria border, flying through northern Iraq and into Iran. This route circumvents Syria’s air defense network, which was built to cover its western flank against an Israeli air attack. The second route is the shortest and involves flying directly over Jordan and Iraq to reach Iran. Due to the shorter distance, the likelihood that Jordan could be deterred from interfering with the strike package, and the absence of any viable Iraqi air defense, this route probably poses the least risk. The third route goes through northern Saudi Arabia, over the Persian Gulf and into Iran. While most of Saudi Arabia’s air defenses and air bases are oriented toward the Persian Gulf and the main cities to the south, Israeli planes would almost certainly be detected, especially since they would have to fly near Tabuk’s air base. If Riyadh did choose to intercept the Israeli aircraft, the Israeli air force would face serious complications because Saudi Arabia has a large number of advanced interceptor aircraft. As the war in Syria intensifies, another route may become viable. Rebel operations have already negatively affected the Syrian regime’s air defenses somewhat. If this trend intensifies, the country’s air defense network may be degraded to the extent that the Israeli air force would be able to fly directly over Syria without undue risk to its aircraft.

Of course, if the US were to engage alongside Israel, presidential elections notwithstanding, and the numerous US aircraft carriers stationed in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea were to participate in any offensive, then all predictive bets are off. One thing is certain: it is, at least in Israel’s view, that the window of attack is rapidly closing, which may explain why crude is once again trading on edge every single day, and why gas at the pump, has once again never been more expensive on this day in history, a fact which the Romney camp will certainly hone in on soon to quite soon.

Courtesy of Not_Jim_Cramer

μέσω Israel’s Iran Strike Routes | ZeroHedge.

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

ΔΙΑΔΗΛΩΣΗ ΙΣΡΑΗΛΙΤΩΝ ΕΝΑΝΤΙΑ ΣΤΟΝ ΠΟΛΕΜΟ ΜΕ ΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ- Israelis stage protest against anti-Iran war rhetoric

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 16, 2012

File photo shows demonstrations against Israel

File photo shows demonstrations against Israel’s anti-Iran war rhetoric.

Israelis have staged a protest outside the residence of the Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak to voice opposition to a possible attack against Iran.

Protesters on Wednesday night carried placards that read “ Dialogue instead of bomb” “No to war” and “The home front is not ready.”

Tel Aviv City Councilwoman Tamar Zandberg (Meretz) said, “This is the fourth night that we are here. We oppose dangerous adventurism between two people.”

She added that the war against Iran is not aimed at defending Israel but it only seeks to retain posts.

The protesters announced that a big demonstration would be held on Thursday in protest at war against Iran.

Last week, Israeli Labor Party leader Shelly Yechimovich said reports coming from the administration about Iran were worrisome.

«Of course, the political realm must make this decision. That said, when the heads of the armed forces, past and present, express strong opposition [to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy,] the lack of attention to their recommendations borders on the irresponsible,» she said.

Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with a military strike to force it to halt its nuclear energy program, claimed by the duo to have been directed towards the acquisition of military nuclear capability.

Tehran, however, refutes such allegations as “baseless” and maintains that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iranian officials have also promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East.

SF/MA

 

μέσω PressTV – Israelis stage protest against anti-Iran war rhetoric.

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

Land Destroyer: The Syrian Government is Not Isolated

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 12, 2012

 

Syria

Syria (Photo credit: No Lands Too Foreign)

Largest nations on Earth converge to support embattled Syrian government.
by Tony Cartalucci

August 11, 2012Iran has recently hosted 30 nations including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Oman, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Jordan, Tunisia, Palestine, and many others in Tehran this week in efforts to support the Syrian government against foreign destabilization. Upon the agenda were calls to end foreign arms currently flowing into terrorist hands inside Syria, proposals to broker a meaningful ceasefire, the coordination of humanitarian aid, and supporting the Syrian people’s right to reform without foreign interference.

The unique conference featured representatives of over half of the world’s population, and signals that indeed, Syria’s government is not as «isolated» as portrayed by Western neo-imperialists.

Image: An impressive counter to the so-called «Friends of Syria» confabs held by Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests in an attempt to sway global opinion toward a repeat of Libya’s destruction at NATO’s hands, the International Consultative Conference hosed by Iran seeks to end the flow of foreign arms into militant hands and resolve political differences through more civilized means.

….

The meeting comes as revelations emerge that the United States, United Kingdom, NATO-member Turkey, and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are supplying weapons, cash, and other assistance to foreign militants with direct links to Al Qaeda. These include Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants who are in fact listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf) as a foreign terrorist organization and a proscribed terrorist organization respectively.

As foreign militants continue to flow over Syria’s borders bolstered with an increase in foreign aid, sectarian violence has spiraled out of control. The UN has categorically failed to condemn the West’s state sponsorship of international terrorism now ravaging Syria. It appears that nations around the world, including shareholders in the Anglo-American establishment, may be having second thoughts about the increasingly untenable enterprise the West has chosen to pursue.

Earlier this month, during a Saudi-Qatari sponsored, US-UK-backed UN resolution, a large number of nations either voted no, abstained, or failed to attend the vote, indicating slipping support for what is sometimes called the «Washington consensus.»

US, GCC, and NATO actions in Libya in support of sectarian militants to install a stable of Western-created proxies into power has stripped away much of the «primacy» of «international law» and left the willfully abused geopolitical tenant of «responsibility to protect» (R2P) irrevocably in tatters. With the West’s attempted destabilization of Syria stalled, global public opinion has grown aware of the true nature of Syria’s so-called «rebels,» and that many are foreign fighters committing an array of abhorrent atrocities. The UN’s failure to act, or even worse, its role in facilitating what equates to military aggression couched in «humanitarian» pretenses, jeopardizes international law all together.

The West has ungracefully faced this quandary of its own creation by simultaneously attempting to use the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists as a causus belli to militarily intervene while also rebranding Al Qaeda as champions of freedom in Syria. One breathtaking account was given by the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations in their article, «Al-Qaeda’s Specter in Syria,» claiming:

«The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.»

Clearly, no nation in good conscience, or at least interested in self-preservation, could condone the overt destabilization of Syria by foreign powers with disingenuous motives, using listed-terrorist organizations to do so. The potential of this same ploy then being turned against other nations including members of Iran’s 30 nation conference, or even the US and UK’s «Friends of Syria» confabs, becomes increasingly more likely if such tactics are not condemned and altogether balked.

While US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks of «no-fly zones» with NATO-member Turkey this week, the successful conference in Tehran illustrates that any such act of aggression will be carried out unilaterally, further undermining the West’s own contrived «international order» with a growing number of nations standing in direct opposition, not in support of, Wall Street and London’s next move.

Iran plans to hold another such conferencelater this month.

μέσω Land Destroyer: The Syrian Government is Not Isolated.

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

Genesis of US-Saudi «Al Qaeda Frankenstein» in Syria

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 12, 2012

English: Osama bin Laden interviewed for Daily...

English: Osama bin Laden interviewed for Daily Pakistan in 1997; behind him on the wall is an AK-47 carbine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Al Qaeda militants funded, armed and arrayed against Syria by the West since at least 2007 receive PR boost from Western media as public awareness grows of their presence. 
by Tony Cartalucci

August 11, 2012 – «To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.» –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh March 5, 2007

«In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar [bin Sultan] and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” –The Redirection, Seymour Hersh March 5, 2007

America’s Implausible Deniability

Image:  Former-US President George Bush and King for Life of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud: «The loving parents of Al Qaeda.» From the 1980’s to present day, the US and Saudi Arabia have funded, armed, and directed Al Qaeda while performing propaganda campaigns to bend public perception regarding the terrorist organization – portraying them as heroes, then villains, and back again. The «War on Terror» is a fraud.
….

Quite clearly, since 2007, the US and its allies were knowingly arraying sectarian extremists with direct ties to Al Qaeda against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Likewise in 2011, the US while leading NATO operations in Libya, armed, trained, funded, and provided air support for Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants – also with direct ties to Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, by all accounts, is a joint US-Saudi creation, led by a Saudi (Osama bin Laden), and armed and funded by Western arms and cash laundered through Saudi Arabia to maintain both «plausible deniability» for the US, and to maintain a semblance of credibility for Al Qaeda militants across the Muslim World.

The now feigned, preposterous «fears» the US is expressing as the monster they’ve created becomes known to global public opinion, constitutes a new depth of depravity in regards to Western foreign policy, ultimately and irrevocably undermining the legitimacy of the West’s collective institutions and its status as a «stabilizing force» in global geopolitics.

The Associated Press joins Western governments in resigning its legitimacy and credibility with their recent report titled, «U.S. fears extremists could highjack goals of anti-Assad rebels,» which claims:

Al-Qaida has advanced beyond isolated pockets of activity in Syria and now is building a network of well-organized cells, according to U.S. intelligence officials, who fear that the terrorists could be establishing a foothold that would be hard to defeat if rebels eventually oust President Bashar Assad.

AP also claims:

At least a couple hundred al-Qaida-linked militants already are operating in Syria, and their ranks are growing as foreign fighters stream into the country daily, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say. The units are spreading from city to city, with veterans of the Iraq insurgency employing their expertise in bomb-building to carry out more than two dozen attacks so far. Others are using their experience in coordinating small units of fighters in Afghanistan to win new followers.

While AP attempts to claim this is a disturbing trend that «US officials» are worried about, other representatives of the corporate-financier interests driving Western foreign policy are attempting to repackage Al Qaeda as «necessary» and shifting to a benign ally.

Image: As more photos depicting Syria’s so-called «Free Syrian Army» as fighting under the banner of Al Qaeda emerge, hiding Al Qaeda’s presence becomes more difficult for the Western press and the corporate-financier interests they represent. Therefore a simultaneous campaign is being waged to spin Al Qaeda’s presence as «recent» and «unexpected,» while attempts are made to repackage the militant group as «heroes.»

….

Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations, a premier Fortune 500-funded US think-tank, wrote in their article, «Al-Qaeda’s Specter in Syria,» that:

«The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime’s superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.»

Also, while AP attempts to portray this disturbing trend as recent, Reuters had reported in their article, «Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs» that months ago that militants operating in Syria had already begun deploying terrorist bombings utilizing skills honed by extremist militants who fought in Iraq over the last decade.

The Telegraph reported even earlier, in November 2011, that Al Qaeda’s LIFG commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj had personally visited the Turkish-Syrian border to pledge cash, weapons, and fighters toward efforts in subverting Syria. Also in late 2011, reports that Libyan fighters, at least 600 of them, had already made their way to Syria began surfacing. As early as April 2011, the role of Al Qaeda in violence playing out all across the US-engineered «Arab Spring» was covered in Dr. Webster Tarpley’s «Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen,» where Syria was specifically mentioned as targeted by the West’s supra-regional campaign.

If the alternative media knew in 2011 that Al Qaeda was on the ground in both Libya and Syria (and elsewhere), and if the New Yorker already reported, point for point exactly who and how events would play out in Syria, as far back as 2007, how is it then that the US only now «fears» extremists of their own creation «hijacking» the goals of the so-called opposition?

The answer of course is the US knew from the very beginning, in fact, long before the beginning. The use of militant extremists to undermine and overrun Syria in an orgy of sectarian driven violence was the chosen method of operation since at least 2007. The US decided to deploy a proxy force, the same one in fact the West had deployed in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. Al Qaeda was a creation of US-Saudi machinations. It is a continuing manifestation of their collective machinations to this day.

Like Weapons of Mass Destruction, Strict Conventions Must Be Arrayed Against «Proxy Wars.» 

Sarin nerve gas, anthrax, and nuclear weapons are considered weapons of such indiscriminate mass destruction, that their use is not only prohibited by both national and international laws and conventions around the world, but have entered civilization’s collective conscience as untenable and inexcusable to use on the battlefield.

Image: Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction, and because of their indiscriminate nature, are banned by both national and international conventions. Proxy terrorists and mercenaries deployed into foreign countries (such as Libyans deploying to fight in Syria with US-Saudi backing) are not only indiscriminate, creating mass destruction and carrying out egregious atrocities, but do so for months, even years. Likewise their use should be banned by national/international conventions and nations caught employing them should have sanctions, severe penalties, and at the very least international condemnation leveled against them. 

….

And just as Sarin nerve gas indiscriminately causes vast swaths of death, or a nuclear weapon kills all within its effective radius, so too do roving proxy armies, fanatically indoctrinated, monetarily motivated, armed, and funded by foreign interests, indiscriminately killing any and all that oppose them. While the West has used the possession and potential use of «weapons of mass destruction» as an excuse to violate the sovereignty of independent nation-states, it itself is deploying indiscriminate tactics leaving tens of thousands dead in nations like Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Mali, and Syria.

If deploying weapons of mass destruction against a population is considered a grievous war crime because of the indiscriminate, unsparing effects of such implements, then surely deploying armed proxies consisting of fanatical killers is likewise a grievous war crime – perhaps more so because of the extended sustainability of such operations, and the capacity to keep on killing and terrorizing for months, even years.

And while we will continue to protest the machinations of the West, we must identify, boycott and replace the very corporate-financier interests underwriting this abhorrent agenda. The process of protesting is moot if it is not done in tandem with an appropriate application of real, tangible activism. To protest Western policy, but then patronize the very corporate-financier interests driving it, is self-defeating and ultimately futile.

μέσω Land Destroyer: Genesis of US-Saudi «Al Qaeda Frankenstein» in Syria.

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

ΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ ΘΑ ΦΤΙΑΞΕΙ ΔΙΚΟ ΤΟΥ ΙΝΤΕΡΝΕΤ(ΙΝΤΡΑΝΕΤ)-Iran to unplug from Web to escape West’s ‘Internet monopoly’ — RT

Posted by satyrikon στο Αύγουστος 6, 2012

A computer engineer checks equipment at an internet service provider in Tehran.(REUTERS / Caren Firouz)

A computer engineer checks equipment at an internet service provider in Tehran.(REUTERS / Caren Firouz)

TAGS: Internet, Information Technology, Iran, Security

 

Tehran plans to remove its key ministries and state bodies from the Internet next month, calling the worldwide web “untrustworthy.” The action is the first phase in a planned Iranian project to replace the Internet with a domestic intranet.

­The country’s key ministries will be unplugged from the global network as early as September, in a move Tehran said is aimed at protecting sensitive intelligence.

Iran’s Ministry of Communications and Technology announced earlier this year that it would launch a domestic intranet to replace the Web. The system will reportedly be operational in 18 months.

«The establishment of the national intelligence network will create a situation where the precious intelligence of the country won’t be accessible to these powers,» Iranian Minister of Communication and Information Technology Reza Taqipour said on Sunday.

Taqipour went on to blast the monopoly control of the Internet by a handful of Western countries.

«The Internet should not be in the hands of one or two specific countries,» Iran’s FARS news agency quoted him as saying at a conference at Tehran’s Amir Kabir University. Taqipour explained his argument by citing how the Internet has become an indispensable element of economic, security and social policy.

The decision to switch to an internal network is believed to have been caused by a series of hacking attempts and cyber attacks against Iran. Iranian nuclear facilities were reportedly attacked by a musical virus in July, turning on lab computers at night and blasting AC/DC’s ‘Thunderstruck.’

Experts at Russia’s Kaspersky Laboratories exposed a Trojan virus called Flame in May 2012, which was designed to spy on web activity in Iran and some Middle Eastern nations. Russian cybersecurity experts labeled Flame “probably the most complicated virus ever.” Flame was believed to have targeted Iran’s oil ministry and main export terminals.

The country’s nuclear program also suffered serious setbacks from the state-of-the-art Stuxnet virus. Stuxnet targeted computers running uranium enrichment centrifuges at Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz, destroying thousands of centrifuges and setting the country’s nuclear program back months, experts said.

Both Flame and Stuntex are believed to have been a joint development by the US and Israel.

The only other country to have its own intranet is North Korea. Dubbed Kwangmyong, the system was deployed in 2000 and is the only network available to North Korean citizens. Only a small number of government-authorized individuals are allowed to use the Internet.

μέσω Iran to unplug from Web to escape West’s ‘Internet monopoly’ — RT.

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 »

Strait of Hormuz will stay open unless Iran’s interests are harmed: military commander

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουλίου 30, 2012

REUTERS/Jumana El Heloueh

REUTERS/Jumana El Heloueh

The Sterett Destroyer escorts the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during a transit through the Strait of Hormuz, February 14, 2012.

Richard Johnson/National Post

Click here to see an enlarged map of the Strait of Hormuz region.

DUBAI — Iran will keep the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane open as long as the waterway served its interests, a military commander was on Monday quoted as saying.

Iranian politicians and officials have often said that Iran could block the strait — the neck of the Gulf through which 40% of the world’s seaborne oil exports passes — in response to sanctions or military action.

Such a move would risk a military response from the United States and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Reuters in July that Iran was unlikely to follow through on the threat unless its own vessels were denied use of the strait.

“Iran’s goal is for everyone in the world to use the Strait of Hormuz but as long as it does not harm Iran’s interests and in that case our reaction would definitely be different,” IRNA news agency quoted senior Revolutionary Guards commander Masoud Jazayeri as telling Iran’s Arabic-language Al Alam television.

“Most military experts know that if Iran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz, no country or countries would be able to confront this move,” he added, according to IRNA.

Experts say that a heavy Western naval presence in the Gulf and surrounding area is a big impediment to any attempt to block the waterway.

Israel and the United States have threatened military action against Iran unless it abandons nuclear activities which the West suspects are intended to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

© Thomson Reuters 2012

Enhanced by Zemanta

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

Ο ΝΕΟΣ ΧΑΡΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΣΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ-ΙΔΡΥΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΥΡΔΙΣΤΑΝ-The Hidden Agenda: Breaking Syria to Pieces and the Creation of Kurdistan « TRANSMISSIONS

Posted by satyrikon στο Ιουλίου 30, 2012

Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: “Break Syria into Pieces”

A timely article in the Jerusalem Post last month brings to the forefront the unspoken objective of US foreign policy, namely the breaking up of Syria as a sovereign nation state –along ethnic and religious lines– into several separate and “independent” political entities. The article also confirms the role of Israel in the process of political destabilization of  Syria.  The JP article is titled: “Veteran Kurdish politician calls on Israel to support the break-up of Syria‘ (by Jonathan Spyer) (The Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2012)

The objective of the US sponsored armed insurgency is –with the help of Israel– to “Break Syria into Pieces”.

The “balkanisation of the Syrian Arab Republic” is to be carried out by fostering sectarian divisions, which will eventually lead to a “civil war” modelled on the former Yugoslavia. Last month, Syrian “opposition militants” were dispatched to Kosovo to organize training sessions using the “terrorist expertise” of the US sponsored Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in fighting the Yugoslav armed forces.  

Sherkoh Abbas, President of the US based Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNA)  has “called on Israel  to support the break-up of Syria into a series of federal structures based on the country’s various ethnicities.” (Ibid)

One possible ”break-up scenario” pertaining to Syria, which constitutes a secular multi-ethnic society, would be the formation of separate and  “independent” Sunni, Alawite-Shiite, Kurdish and Druze states:   “We need to break Syria into pieces,” Abbas said. (Quoted in JP, op. cit., emphasis added).

“The Syrian Kurdish dissident argued that a federal Syria, separated into four or five regions on an ethnic basis, would also serve as a natural “buffer” for Israel against both Sunni and Shi’ite Islamist forces.” (Ibid.).  

Ironically, while Islamist forces are said to constitute the main threat to the Jewish State, Tel Aviv is providing covert support to the Islamist Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The public statements of KNA leader Sherkoh Abbas in the wake of the State Department meeting suggest that the political fracturing of the Syrian Arab Republic along ethnic and religious lines as well as the creation of an “independent Kurdistan” were discussed. “State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner described [the meeting’s] purpose as part of ‘ongoing efforts… to help the Syrian [Kurdish] opposition build a more cohesive opposition to Assad.’”  (Ibid).

The KNA leader called upon Washington to support the creation of a separate Kurdish State consisting of  “an autonomous region in Syria; joining the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq – which borders the Kurdish region in Syria; or perhaps an even larger Kurdish state” [Greater Kurdistan].

“The Kurdish people, in all parts of Kurdistan, seek the right to form an independent Kurdish state. We can only achieve this cherished goal with the help of the western democracies, and first and foremost the U.S.” said Sherkoh Abbas. (Syria: An Alternative, Choice, Ekurd.net, May 22, 2012)

It is worth noting, in this regard, that the creation of a “Greater Kurdistan” has been envisaged for several years by the Pentagon as part of a broader “Plan for Redrawing the Middle East”.(See map 2 below)

This option, which appears unlikely in the near future, would go against the interests of Turkey, a staunch ally of both the US and Israel. Another scenario, which is contemplated by Ankara would consist in the annexation to Turkey of parts of Syrian Kurdistan. (See map above).

“Greater Kurdistan” would include portions of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey as conveyed in Coronel  Ralph Peters (ret) celebrated map of “The New Middle East” (see below). (For Further details see Mahdi Nazemroaya’s November 2006 Global Research article). 

Washington Promotes Kurdish Uprising: US “Kurdish” Threat Aimed at Turkey, Not Syria

Kurdish groups have thus far stayed out of NATO’s destabilization of Syria, US threats to arm and unleash Kurdish groups aims at coaxing Turkey to act.

The violence in Syria has been predominantly carried out by extremist groups, 
tied to Al Qaeda, and organized, funded, staged, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, with Lebanon’s Hariri faction playing a major supporting role. Starting as early as 2007, it was reported that Syria’s notoriously violent Muslim Brotherhood was already receiving support from the West to begin undermining Syria as part of a grander strategy to break the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah sphere of influence across the region.

The Kurds, occupying territory straddling the Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, and Turkish borders, have for nearly as long, been fighting against Turkish forces, with US-occupied Iraq hosting several Turkish invasions aimed at crushing alleged Kurdish strongholds. Unlike Syria’s battle against admittedly foreign-funded and armed militants, many of whom are not even Syrian, the “international community” has been mute over Turkey’s military campaigns against Kurds both within and beyond its borders. And even throughout the duration of Syria’s current unrest, Turkey has continued conducting military operations against the Kurds.

Image: The Kurds occupy a region straddling the borders of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. While Kurds in northern Iraq have been relatively co-existing with other Iraqis, enjoying a degree of autonomy, and in Syria enjoying the protection of Assad along with Syria’s other minority groups, the Kurds in Turkey have been fighting a decades long battle against the government who has pursued them within and beyond Turkey’s borders. If Kurds are armed by the US, they will head to Ankara, not Damascus – thus Washington’s latest threat was made toward Turkey, not Syria.  

Syria’s Kurdish population has remained neutral, as have most of Syria’s minority groups – fearing Libya-style consequences of allowing heavily armed, foreign-backed extremists to overrun their nation and either impose draconian restrictions upon them, or uproot and/or exterminate them all together, as the people ofLibya’s Tawargha have experienced. So then, Washington’s latest move, in addition to openly admitting they are facilitating the arming of Syria’s opposition in the midst of a UN brokered “ceasefire,” to invite “Kurds” from Syria for talks about arming and deploying them against President Bashar al-Assad, seems a very unlikely scenario. Indeed, Washington may very well arm Syria’s Kurds, but the direction they will ultimately go will be Ankara, not Damascus. 

And even if Syria’s Kurds decided to rise up against the Syrian government for Western interests first, just as is happening in Libya, the weapons, cash, and support they use to do it with will inevitably end up being used against Turkey in the near future. In Libya, arms from NATO have already trickled into the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) affiliates across Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and even into the hands of Nigeria’s Boko Haram.  

Published by corporate-financier funded US policy think-tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The Syrian Dilemma: Turkey’s Response to the Crisis,” notes that Turkey is the ideal proxy for the West to carry forth its agenda, but also recognizes the quandary faced by Turkey. Turkey could not credibly intervene in Syria on “humanitarian grounds” while carrying out similar military campaigns within its own borders against the Kurds, and any incursion into Syria by Turkey could lead to a backlash from the Kurdish community across the region.   

Turkey, which has been selected by US foreign policy think-tanks to create “safe havens” within Syria for NATO’s proxy forces, has yet to materialize any concrete plan of action. It may be that Turkey has decided against what is ultimately the first phase of a greater war against Iran, and in turn Russia and China. The US using Turkey as a proxy, will fight its enemies to the last Turk, after bleeding its own soldiers dry and bankrupting its taxpayers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey’s hesitation, in Washington’s eyes, after the offering of several unpalatable carrots, seems to be now incurring the stick. If Turkey needed any more reasons to abandon a pro-Wall Street-London stance, this latest provocation by Washington should be it. 

It is unlikely the West will have any success in triggering a Kurdish uprising in Syria. If Turkey assists the Syrian government in restoring order within its borders, it is also unlikely that any attempt by the West to arm the Kurds as a punitive action against Turkey will gain any traction. However, if Turkey assists the West in destabilizing, dividing, and destroying Syria, a lawless Libya-style staging ground for militant activities in all directions, including Ankara, will result. And if Libya’s “post-revolution” dystopia can serve as a warning to Turkey against advancing the West’s agenda, “pre-revolution” Libya where the West feigned rapprochement with Muammar Qaddafi before ultimately betraying him can serve as warning against Turkey for believing it serves as anything more than a lever with which the West seeks to use to advance its own exclusively beneficial interests.

μέσω The Hidden Agenda: Breaking Syria to Pieces and the Creation of Kurdistan « TRANSMISSIONS.

Enhanced by Zemanta

 

 

 

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

 
Αρέσει σε %d bloggers: