Fighting ISIL is a Smokescreen for US Mobilization against Syria, Iran


~ by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya ~ GlobalResearch, 26/9/2014

The ISIL or IS threat is a smokescreen. The strength of the ISIL has deliberately been inflated to get public support for the Pentagon and to justify the illegal bombing of Syria. It has also been used to justify the mobilization of what is looking more and more like a large-scale US-led military buildup in the Middle East. The firepower and military assets being committed go beyond what is needed for merely fighting the ISIL death squads.

While the US has assured its citizens and the world that troops will not be sent on the ground, this is very unlikely. In the first instance, it is unlikely because boots on the ground are needed to monitor and select targets. Moreover, Washington sees the campaign against the ISIL fighters as something that will take years. This is doublespeak. What is being described is a permanent military deployment or, in the case of Iraq, redeployment. This force could eventually morph into a broader assault force threatening Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

RELATED: “Crushing Kobani’s Kurds is a Prerequisite to an Invasion of Syria” [interview with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya]

US-Syrian and US-Iranian Security Dialogue?

Before the US-led bombings in Syria started there were unverified reports being circulated that Washington had started a dialogue with Damascus through Russian and Iraqi channels to discuss military coordination and the Pentagon bombing campaign in Syria. There was something very off though. Agents of confusion were at work in an attempt to legitimize the bombardment of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The claims of US-Syrian cooperation via Russian and Iraqi channels are part of a sinister series of misinformation and disinformation. Before the claims about US cooperation with Syria, similar claims were being made about US-Iranian cooperation in Iraq.

Earlier, Washington and the US media tried to give the impression that an agreement on military cooperation was made between itself and Tehran to fight ISIL and to cooperate inside Iraq. This was widely refuted in the harshest of words by numerous members of the Iranian political establishment and high-ranking Iranian military commanders as disinformation.

After the Iranians clearly indicated that Washington’s claims were fiction, the US claimed that it would not be appropriate for Iran to join its anti-ISIL coalition. Iran rebutted. Washington was dishonestly misrepresenting the facts, because US officials had asked Tehran to join the anti-ISIL coalition several times.

Before he was discharged from the hospital after a prostate surgery, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the highest ranking official in Iran, told Iranian television on September 9, 2014, that the US had requested that Tehran and Washington cooperate together inside Iraq on three different occasions. He explained that the US ambassador to Iraq had relayed a message to the Iranian ambassador to Iraq to join the US, then, in his own words, «the same [John Kerry] — who had said in front of the camera and in front of the eyes of all the world that they do not want Iran to cooperate with them — requested [from] Dr. Zarif that Iran cooperate with them on this issue, but Dr. Zarif turned this [request] down.» The third request was made by US Undersecretary Wendy Sherman to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Khamenei additionally made it clear that he categorically ruled out any cooperation with Washington on the issue. «On this issue, we will not cooperate with America particularly because their hands are dirty,» he publicly confirmed while explaining that Washington had ill intentions and nefarious designs in Iraq and Syria.

Like Russia, Iran has been supporting Syria and Iraq against ISIL. Also like Moscow, Tehran is committed to fighting it, but will not join Washington’s anti-ISIL coalition.

New Invasion(s) and Regime Change Project(s) in the Pipeline?

As was pointed out on June 20, 2014, in Washington’s eyes Nouri Al-Malaki’s federal government in Baghdad had to be removed for refusing to join the US siege against the Syrians, being aligned to Iran, selling oil to the Chinese, and buying weapons from the Russian Federation. Iraq’s decision to be part of an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline also undermined the objectives of the US and its allies to control the flow of energy in the Middle East and to obstruct Eurasian integration. [1]

There were also two other unforgivable cardinal sins that Al-Malaki’s government in Baghdad committed in Washington’s eye. These offenses, however, should be put into geopolitical context first.

Remember the post-September 11, 2001 (post-9/11) catchphrase of the Bush II Administration during the start of its serial wars? It went like this: «Anyone can go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran!» The point of this warmongering catchphrase is that Baghdad and Damascus have been viewed as pathways for the Pentagon towards Tehran. [2]

Like Syria, Al-Malaki government’s cardinal sins were tied to blocking the pathway to Tehran. Firstly, the Iraqi government evicted the Pentagon from Iraq at the end of 2011, which removed US troops stationed directly on Iran’s western border. Secondly, the Iraqi federal government was working to expel anti-government Iranian militants from Iraq and to close Camp Ashraf, which could be used in a war or regime change operations against Iran.

Ashraf was a base for the military wing of the Iraqi-based Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK/MOK/MKO). The MEK is an anti-government Iranian organization that is bent on regime change in Tehran. It has even openly endorsed US-led attacks on Iran and Syria.

Although the US government itself considers the MEK a terrorist organization, Washington began to deepen its ties with the MEK when it and its staunch British allies invaded Iraq. Disingenuously and ironically, the US and Britain used Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK to justify labeling Iraq as a state-sponsor of terrorism and to also justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Since then the US has been has been nurturing the MEK.

Since 2003, the US has been has been funding the MEK. Washington has been protecting the MEK, because it wants to keep them on a leash as either leverage against Tehran or to have the option of one day installing the MEK into power in Tehran as part of a regime change operation against Iran. The MEK has literally become incorporated into the Pentagon and CIA toolboxes against Tehran. Even when the US transferred control of Camp Ashraf to Baghdad, the Pentagon kept forces inside the MEK camp.

Eventually the MEK forces would mostly be relocated in 2012 to the former US base known as Camp Liberty. Camp Liberty is now called by an Arabic name, Camp Hurriya.

The Istanbul bureau chief of the Christian Science Monitor, Scott Peterson described how US officials began to really put their weight behind the MEK during the start of the Arab Spring in 2011. This is tied to Washington’s regime change dreams. Peterson wrote that US officials «rarely mention the MEK’s violent and anti-American past, and portray the group not as terrorists but as freedom fighters with ‘values just like us,’ as democrats-in-waiting ready to serve as a vanguard of regime change in Iran.» [3]

Washington Has Not Abandoned Dreams of Regime Change in Tehran

Washington has not abandoned its dreams for regime change in Tehran. Is it a coincidence that the US and EU support for the MEK is increasing, especially when the ISIL threat in Iraq began to be noticed publicly?

Six hundred parliamentarians and politicians from mostly NATO countries were flown in for a large MEK gathering in the Parisian northeastern suburb of Villepinte that called for regime change in Iran on June 27, 2014. Warmongers and morally bankrupt figures like former US senator Joseph Lieberman, Israeli mouthpiece and apologist Alan Dershowhitz, former Bush II official and Fox News pundit John Bolton, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and French former minister and United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNIMIK) chief Bernard Kouchner all met the MEK to promote regime change and war. According to the MEK, over 80, 000 people attended the regime change rally. Supporters of the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria were also present at the Villepinte gathering calling for regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

The irony is that the money for the event most probably came from the US government itself. US allies probably contributed too. This money has gone to the MEK’s lobbying initiatives with the US Congress and US Department of State, which in effect is recycling US funding. People like Rudy Giuliani — probably one of the most hated mayors in the history of New York City until he took advantage of the tragic events of 9/11 — are now effectively lobbyists for the MEK. «Many of these former high-ranking US officials — who represent the full political spectrum — have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK,» according to the Christian Science Monitor. [4]

Giuliani has been speaking at MEK events at least as far back as 2010. In 2011, he publicly pushed for regime change in Tehran and Damascus at a MEK gathering. «How about we follow an Arab Spring with a Persian Summer?» he rhetorically declared. [5] Giuliani’s next sentence revealed just how much of a scion of US foreign policy the initiative to support the MEK truly is: «We need regime change in Iran, more than we do in Egypt or Libya, and just as we need it in Syria.» [6]

Joseph Lieberman’s friend and fellow war advocate Senator John McCain was unable to make the trip to the Parisian suburb in Seine-Saint-Denis, but addressed the regime change gathering via video. Congressman Edward Royce, the chair of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, also showed his support for regime change in Iran through a video message. So did Senator Carl Levin and Senator Robert Menendez.

Villepinte-gathering-for-regime-change-in-Tehran-27-June-2014Large delegations from the US, France, Spain, Canada, and Albania were present. Aside from the aforementioned individuals, other notable American attendees to the June 27, 2014 event included the following:

1. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the lower chamber (House of Representatives) in the bicameral US Congress;

2. John Dennis Hastert; another former speaker of the House of Representatives;

3. George William Casey Jr., who commanded the multinational military force that invaded and occupied Iraq;

4. Hugh Shelton, a computer software executive and former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff;

5. James Conway, the former chief of the US Marine Corps

6. Louis Freeh, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

7. Lloyd Poe, the US Representative who sits on (1) the US House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats and chairs (2) the US House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non‐proliferation and Trade;

8. Daniel Davis, a US Representative from Illinois;

9. Loretta Sánchez, a US Representative from California;

10. Michael B. Mukasey, a former attorney-general of the US;

11. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont;

12. William Richardson, the former secretary of the US Department of Energy;

13. Robert Torricelli, a former legislator in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate senator who is the legally representative of the MEK in Iraq;

14. Francis Townsend, former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush Jr.;

15. Linda Chavez, a former chief White House director;

16. Robert Joseph, the former US undersecretary that ran the (1) Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, (2) the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, and the (3) Bureau of Political-Military Affairs;

17. Philip Crowley, the former assistant-secretary of state responsible for public affairs;

18. David Phillips, the military police commander who restructured the Iraqi police and was responsible for guarding Camp Ashraf and Saddam Hussein as a prisoner;

19. Marc Ginsberg, the senior vice-president of the public relations firm APCO Worldwide and former US ambassador and US presidential adviser for Middle East policy.

Like the US presence, the French presence included officials. Aside from Bernard Kouchner, from France some of the notable attendees were the following individuals:

1. Michèle Alliot-Marie, a French politician who among her cabinet portfolios was responsible for the military and foreign affairs at different times;

2. Rama Yade, vice president of the conservative Radical Party of France;

3. Gilbert Mitterrand, the president of the human rights foundation France Libertés, which has focused on ethnic groups such as Kurds, Chechens, and Tibetans;

4. Martin Vallton, the mayor of Villepinte.

From Spain the notable attendees were the following:

1. Pedro Agramunt Font de Mora, the Spanish chair of the European People’s Party (EPP) and its allies in the Council of Europe;

2. Jordi Xucla, the Spanish chair of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group in the Council of Europe;

3. Alejo Vidal-Quadras, a Spanish politician and one of the fourteen vice-presidents of the European Union’s European Parliament;

4. José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the former prime minister of Spain (who was also visibly accompanied by his wife Sonsoles Espinosa Díaz).

Other notable attendees from other Euro-Atlantic countries included:

1. Pandli Majko, the former prime minster of Albania;

2. Kim Campbell, the former prime minister of Canada

3. Geir Haarde, the former prime minister of Iceland;

4. Ingrid Betancourt, a former Colombian senator;

5. Alexander Carile, a member of the British House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament

6. Giulio Maria Terzi, the former foreign minister of Italy;

7. Adrianus Melkert, a former Dutch cabinet minister, a former World Bank executive, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s former special envoy to Iraq.

Not only regime change was talked about, but the cross-border crisis in Iraq and Syria was a major subject. Fox News gave the event special coverage. Just in July, the MEK’s leadership had condemned Iranian support to the Iraqi federal government in its fight against the ISIL, yet since the US had began to nominally fight the ISIL the MEK has begun to hold its tongue.

Before the regime change gathering, the MEK’s leader Maryam Rajavi — who the MEK has designated as the president of Iran since 1993 — even meet with the puppet Syrian National Council’s leader Ahmed Jarba in Paris to discuss cooperation on May 23, 2014.

Maryam-Rajavi-and-Ahmed-Jarba-discuss-regime-change-in-Iran-and-SyriaMEK leader Maryam Rajavi and SNC leader Ahmed Jarba meet to discuss cooperating for regime change in Tehran and Damascus.

Regime Change in Damascus through Mission Creep in Syria

The bombing campaign that the US has started in Syria is illegal and a violation of the UN Charter. This is why the Pentagon took the step of claiming that the US-led bombing campaign was prompted by the threat of an «imminent» attack that was being planned against the territory of the US. This allegation was made to give legal cover to the bombardment of Syrian territory through a warped argument under Article 51 of the UN Charter that allows a UN member to legally attack another country if an imminent attack by the said country is about to take place on the UN member.

Barack Obama and the US government have done their best to confuse and blur reality through a series of different steps they have taken to claim legitimacy for violating international law by bombing Syria without the authorization of Damascus. Although US Ambassador Samantha Powers informed Syria’s permanent representative to the UN that US-led attacks would be launched on Al-Raqqa Governate, informing Bashar Al-Jaafari through a formal unilateral notification does not amount to being given the legal consent of Syria.

The US-led attacks on Syria do not have the backing of the UN Security Council either. The US government, however, has tried to spin the September 19, 2014, meeting of the UN Security Council that John Kerry chaired as a sign that the UN Security Council and international community are backing its bombing campaign.

Nor is it a coincidence that just when the US assembled its multinational coalition to fight the ISIL and its pseudo-caliphate, that John Kerry conveniently mentions that Syria has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). While admitting that Syria did not use any material prohibited by the CWC, Kerry told US legislators that Damascus had breached its commitments to the CWC on September 18, 2014. In other words, Washington intends to go after Syria and pursue regime change in Damascus. If this does not make it clear, then the fact that the US will use Saudi Arabia to train more anti-government forces should. [7]

A US brinkmanship strategy to justify a US-led bombing campaign against Syria has been put into action with the intent of creating a pretext for expanding the illegal US-led airstrikes in Syria that started on September 22, 2014.

What the US envisions is a long-term bombing campaign, which also threatens Lebanon and Iran. According to Ali Khamenei, the US wants to bomb both Iraq and Syria using ISIL as a smokescreen on the basis of the model in Pakistan. More correctly, the situation should be compared to the AfPak (Af-Pak) model. The US has used the spillover of instability from Afghanistan into Pakistan and the spread of the Taliban as a pretext for bombing Pakistan. Iraq and Syria have been merged as one conflict zone, which Ibrahim Al-Marashi, using a neologism, has described as the rise of «Syraq.»

The Broader Objective: Disrupting Eurasian Integration

While the US has been pretending to fight the same terrorist and death squads that it has created, the Chinese and their partners have been busy working to integrate Eurasia. America’s «Global War on Terror» has been paralleled with the rebuilding of the Silk Road. This is the real story and motivation for Washington’s insistence to fight and remobilize in the Middle East. It is also the reason why the US has been pushing Ukraine to confront Russia and the EU to sanction the Russian Federation.

America wants to disrupt the reemerging Silk Road and its expanding trade network. While Kerry has been busy frightening audiences about the ISIL and its atrocities, the Chinese have been busy sweeping the map by making deals across Asia and the Indian Ocean. This is part of the westward march of the Chinese dragon.

Parallel to Kerry’s travels, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Sri Lanka and went to the Maldives. Sri Lanka is already part of China’s Maritime Silk Road project. The Maldivians are newer entries; agreements have been reached to include the island-nation into the Maritime Silk Road network and infrastructure that China is busy constructing to expand maritime trade between East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Nor is it a coincidence that two Chinese destroyers docked at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas in the Persian Gulf to conduct joint drills with Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf.

Parallel to east-west trade, a north-south trade and transport network is being developed. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in Kazakhstan recently where he and his Kazakhstani counterpart, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, confirmed that trade was due to see manifold increases. The completion of the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran railway, which will create a north-south transit route, is being awaited. Cooperation between Tehran and the Eurasian Union was also discussed by the two presidents. On the other western side of the Caspian Sea, a parallel north-south corridor running from Russia to Iran through the Republic of Azerbaijan has been in the works.

The anti-Russia sanctions are beginning to cause uneasiness in the European Union. The real losers in the sanctions in Russia are the members of the European Union. Russia has demonstrated that it has options. Moscow has already launched the construction of its mega natural gas Yakutia–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline (also known as the Power of Siberia pipeline) to deliver gas to China while BRICS partner South Africa has signed a historic deal on nuclear energy with Rosatom.

Moscow’s influence on the world stage is very clear. Its influence has been on the rise in the Middle East and Latin America. Even in NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, Russian influence is on the rise. The Russian government has recently compiled a list of over one hundred old Soviet construction projects that it would like to recuperate.

An alternative to US and EU sanctions is beginning to emerge in Eurasia. Aside from the oil-for-goods deal that Tehran and Moscow signed, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak announced that Iran and Russia had made several new agreements worth seventy billion euro. Sanctions will soon merely isolate the US and the EU. The Iranians have also announced that they are working with their Chinese and Russian partners to overcome the US and EU sanctions regime.

America is being rolled back. It cannot pivot to the Asia-Pacific until matters are settled in the Middle East and Eastern Europe against the Russian, Iranians, Syrians, and their allies. That is why Washington is doing its best to disrupt, divide, redraw, bargain and co-opt. When it comes down to it, the US is not concerned about fighting the ISIL, which has been serving Washington’s interests in the Middle East. America’s main concern is about preserving its crumbling empire and preventing Eurasian integration.


[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «America pursuing regime change in Iraq again,» RT, June 20, 2014.
[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, «The Syria Endgame: Strategic Stage in the Pentagon’s Covert War on IranGlobal Research, January 07, 2013.
[3] Scott Peterson, «Iranian group’s big-money push to get off US terrorist list,» Christian Science Monitor, August 8, 2011.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.

[7] Matt Spetalnick, Jeff Mason and Julia Edwards, «Saudi Arabia agrees to host training of moderate Syria rebels», Caren Bohan, Grant McCool, and Eric Walsh eds. Reuters, September 10, 2014.


SOURCE: by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya ~ GlobalResearch, 26/9/2014

Post’s pubblication & research by The Old Sniper’

the real SyrianFreePress.NETwork
and ‘updated reissue’

Versione in Italiano
su  TG24Siria
GlobalResearch 16/10/2014


Lies from the USA media, particularly Washington Post, on the use of chemical weapons in Syria

Garbage and Lies Printed by the “Washington Post”

The “Editorial Board” (whoever that is), of the Washington Post wrote an article October 23, 2014 titled:

“Obama gives Syria’s Assad another pass on chemical weapons”

First off, lets break down this completely insulting article. The first paragraph reads:

Untitled 12163

In this paragraph, the Washington Post uses the word “regime” as if it didn’t represent the people of Syria. To the contrary. When the FSA (Free Syrian Army), ISIS or whoever the foreign mercenaries are move into an area, the local Syrians move out and leave their homes. Towns have become as ghost towns. Once the Syrian Arab Army liberates a town, the civilians who had left (because of the threat of beheading, rape, execution, crucification, etc), return to their homes to find many of them looted, booby-trapped, or worse destroyed. I have shown in previous articles how elated the people are, but since I am proving a point against one of the US’s biggest propaganda machines beating the drums of war, Ill show it again.

Syrian “sources” are FSA supported and US backed rebels (better known as terrorists to Syrians). The US main stream media likes to call John Kerry and John McCains boys “activists” or “sources.” They are not Syrians, and do NOT represent the people of Syria. Beware of where their information comes from when they lack showing a real Syrian, with a real name, from a real town in Syria. Blanket statements from “sources” or “activists” just dont count when you need to be credible from such a large paper.

At the end of this paragraph, you see the key word “ALLEGEDLY” used when describing chlorine gas used against rebel positions. Please, think about this a minute. Why would the Syrian government use chlorine gas on rebels when they could just drop bombs and blow them to pieces? After all, one may live from a chlorine attack. Pretty sure they would be dead after a missile hit them. Hmmm, potential life? Or death. You decide what the Syrian military would do here. I know what I would do, and using chlorine would NOT be my choice!.

Untitled 12164

Lets examine the play on words in the next paragraph, shall we? The word “resort” as used in the above paragraph implies no other option. Trying to infer they have to gas rebel held areas. Again, Im pretty sure a missile would be a more definitive way to kill. This is almost laughable in how ridiculous it sounds. Those poor rebels being hit with chlorine, they may actually LIVE!

Untitled 12165

The third paragraph is very carefully worded. “…confirmation” that toxic chemicals were used…” without saying exactly who used them. So far, Washington DC, or Israel or even the Washington Post has shown any proof as to who used chemical weapons in Syria ever. The above mentioned still claim Bashar al-Assad used Sarin gas on civilians last August without offering a shred of proof except for the words of the foreign terrorists who make the claims. Play close attention to the small statement “…making verification virtually impossible.”

Its a bit hard for the UN or other investigative teams entering Syria to do an investigation when their members are murdered or kidnapped by rebels.

Untitled 12166

In the fourth paragraph, the unknown “Editorial Board” has written WITHOUT ANY PROOF that the “…Assad regime is ONCE AGAIN (implying they did it before), blatantly violating the “red line” drawn by Mr (not president), Obama…” This statement shows the “Editorial Board” from the Washington Post is incapable of researching any facts before they print. Again, a HUGE problem when trying to show credibility. First, lets look at who uses chemicals in Syria…

Second, lets listen to Carla Del Ponte from the UN herself, and what her investigation showed up. She clearly states their investigations showed the rebels used Sarin, and there was “NO EVIDENCE” the government of Syria used it at all. The Washington Post would have you believe that Bashar al-Assad would gas his own supporters while the UN team is there to investigate. My my how the Post will lie.

Lets also not forget the study done by MIT in the United States.

The authors concluded that sarin gas “could not possibly have been fired at East Ghouta from the ‘heart’, or from the Eastern edge, of the Syrian government controlled area shown in the intelligence map published by the White House on August 30, 2013.”

“This mistaken intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action based on false intelligence. A proper vetting of the fact that the munition was of such short range would have led to a completely different assessment of the situation from the gathered data,” the report states.

The authors emphasize that the UN independent assessment of the range of the chemical munition is in “exact agreement” with their findings.

The report goes on to challenge the US Secretary of State’s key assessments of the chemical attack that he presented to the American people on August 30th and to the Foreign Relations Committee on September 3rd in an effort to muster a military attack on Syria.

“My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct,” Postol told McClatchy publication.


Their full report can be read here:

The Washington Post merely acts like a parrot of the US government, repeating anything the US government says (being fabricated or not). Statements based on “sources” or “activists” doesnt lend too much towards their reliability of reporting the truth.

Untitled 12167

I especially like this paragraph. The poor rebels and corrupt implicit Turkish government want a no-fly zone and they arent getting their way. Well, isnt this a bummer? The rebels and the Turkish government would like the United States to illegally attack the very forces that have been fighting terrorism for 3 years now. So while all of this is going on, the Syrian Army is just going to use some chlorine (household bleach) willy nilly when they can just kill with missiles. Well, this makes perfect sense, doesnt it? Too bad for the government of Turkey who is dripping with Syrian blood, and the “rebels” (AKA foreign mercenaries or terrorists), who have caused rivers of Syrian blood to flow. Its unbelievable the garbage written that claims to be news. It can hardly be entertainment to anyone other than the military industrial complex, and those paid HUGE sums of money when wars break out.

Untitled 12168

“A pass” on chemical weapons used in Syria from sources who couldnt be trusted to carry a laundry basket across the street. Makes perfect sense, but only one who is paid to report flat out lies as the Washington Post has here.

If people wouldnt just take some publications at face value, but would do a bit of research for themselves, the world may be a more peaceful place. At least the things happening in it would be exposed for what they are, and DIS-information (like this garbage published by the Washington Post), would immediately be known as outright lies. I guess they dont care anymore if their articles can hold a teaspoon of water, just so long as they mimic the corrupt politicians and the corporate elite they serve like the good little slaves they are. Its a shame really, but most of all, SHAME ON THEM!

On a footnote… The “Institute for the Study of War (ISW) may be even worse than the Washington Post! I nearly laughed myself out of the chair when I saw their “sources” named in this bogus report. “Sham News Network” is one of the biggest FSA sites reporting faked stories for some time now, backed by Saudi and Qatars money Im sure. As a matter of fact, I think Ill do a bit of an investigation of who they are, and share it with everyone. I think this may be interesting ;-)

I’ll leave you with an interview conducted by the Turkish media with President Bashar al-Assad in April of 2013. In this interview, you will see the eloquent way in which he speaks. You will see a confident man, that speaks more truth in this 39 minute video, than you have ever see in the last three years of reporting by such “sources” as the Washington Post

God Bless and protect you President Dr Bashar al-Assad

Russia Rising

Lasha Darkmoon

October 24, 2014

Russia is on the way up, America on the way down. Will Washington start a major new war in a desperate attempt to reverse its decline and deal a death blow to its increasingly confident competitor?


An edited abridgment of Dmitri Orlov’s How to Start a War and Lose An Empire, presented with pictures, captions and comments by Lasha Darkmoon

A year and a half I wrote an essay on how the US chooses to view Russia, titledThe Image of the Enemy. I was living in Russia at the time, and, after observing the American anti-Russian rhetoric and the Russian reaction to it, I made some observations that seemed important at the time. It turns out that I managed to spot an important trend, but given the quick pace of developments since then, these observations are now woefully out of date, and so here is an update.

At that time the stakes weren’t very high yet. There was much noise around a fellow named Magnitsky, a corporate lawyer-crook who got caught and died in pretrial custody. He had been holding items for some bigger Western crooks, who were, of course, never apprehended. The Americans chose to treat this as a human rights violation and responded with the so-called “Magnitsky Act” which sanctioned certain Russian individuals who were labeled as human rights violators. Russian legislators responded with the “Dima Yakovlev Bill,” named after a Russian orphan adopted by Americans who killed him by leaving him in a locked car for nine hours. This bill banned American orphan-killing fiends from adopting any more Russian orphans. It all amounted to a silly bit of melodrama.

But what a difference a year and a half has made! Ukraine, which was at that time collapsing at about the same steady pace as it had been ever since its independence two decades ago, is now truly a defunct state, with its economy in free-fall, one region gone and two more in open rebellion, much of the country terrorized by oligarch-funded death squads, and some American-anointed puppets nominally in charge but quaking in their boots about what’s coming next.

Syria and Iraq, which were then at a low simmer, have since erupted into full-blown war, with large parts of both now under the control of the Islamic Caliphate, which was formed with help from the US, was armed with US-made weapons via the Iraqis.

Post-Qaddafi Libya seems to be working on establishing an Islamic Caliphate of its own. Against this backdrop of profound foreign US foreign policy failure, the US recently saw it fit to accuse Russia of having troops “on NATO’s doorstep,” as if this had nothing to do with the fact that NATO has expanded east, all the way to Russia’s borders.

American Military Bases across the globe

Unsurprisingly, US–Russia relations have now reached a point where the Russians saw it fit to issue a stern warning: further Western attempts at blackmailing them may result in a nuclear confrontation.

The American behavior throughout this succession of defeats has been remarkably consistent, with the constant element being their flat refusal to deal with reality in any way, shape or form. Just as before, in Syria the Americans are ever looking for moderate, pro-Western Islamists, who want to do what the Americans want (topple the government of Bashar al Assad) but will stop short of going on to destroy all the infidel invaders they can get their hands on. The fact that such moderate, pro-Western Islamists do not seem to exist does not affect American strategy in the region in any way.

Similarly, in Ukraine, the fact that the heavy American investment in “freedom and democracy,” or “open society,” or what have you, has produced a government dominated by fascists and a civil war is, according to the Americans, just some Russian propaganda. Parading under the banner of Hitler’s Ukrainian SS division and anointing Nazi collaborators as national heroes is just not convincing enough for them.

What do these Nazis have to do to prove that they are Nazis, build some ovens and roast some Jews?

Just massacring people by setting fire to a building, as they did in Odessa, or shooting unarmed civilians in the back and tossing them into mass graves, as they did in Donetsk, doesn’t seem to work. The fact that many people have refused to be ruled by Nazi thugs and have successfully resisted them has caused the Americans to label them as “pro-Russian separatists.” This, in turn, was used to blame the troubles in Ukraine on Russia, and to impose sanctions on Russia. The sanctions would be reviewed if Russia were to withdraw its troops from Ukraine.

Trouble is, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine.

Note that this sort of behavior is nothing new. The Americans invaded Afghanistan because the Taleban would not relinquish Osama Bin Laden (who was a CIA operative) unless Americans produced evidence implicating him in 9/11—which did not exist. Americans invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not relinquish his weapons of mass destruction—which did not exist.

They invaded Libya because Muammar Qaddafi would not relinquish official positions—which he did not hold.

They were ready to invade Syria because Bashar al Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people—which he did not do. And now they imposed sanctions on Russia because Russia had destabilized and invaded Ukraine—which it did not do either. (The US did that.)

The sanctions against Russia have an additional sort of unreality to them, because they “boomerang” and hurt the West while giving the Russian government the impetus to do what it wanted to do all along. The sanctions infringed on the rights of a number of Russian businessmen and officials, who promptly yanked their money out of Western banks, pulled their children out of Western schools and universities, and did everything else they could to demonstrate that they are good patriotic Russians, not American lackeys.

The sanctions affected a number of Russian energy companies, cutting them off from Western sources of technology and financing, but this will primarily hurt the earnings of Western energy companies while helping their Chinese competitors. There were even some threats to cut Russia off from the SWIFT system, which would have made it quite difficult to transfer funds between Russia and the West, but what these threats did instead was to give Russia the impetus to introduce its own RUSSWIFT system, which will include even Iran, neutralizing future American efforts at imposing financial restrictions.

The sanctions were meant to cause economic damage, but Western efforts at inflicting short-term economic damage on Russia are failing. Coupled with a significant drop in the price of oil, all of this was supposed to hurt Russia fiscally, but since the sanctions caused the Ruble to drop in tandem, the net result on Russia’s state finances is a wash. Oil prices are lower, but then, thanks in part to the sanctions, so is the Ruble, and since oil revenues are still largely in dollars, this means that Russia’s tax receipts are at roughly the same level at before. And since Russian oil companies earn dollars abroad but spend rubles domestically, their production budgets remain unaffected.

The Russians also responded by imposing some counter-sanctions, and to take some quick steps to neutralize the effect of the sanctions on them. Russia banned the import of produce from the European Union—to the horror of farmers there. Especially hurt were those EU members who are especially anti-Russian: the Baltic states, which swiftly lost a large fraction of their GDP, along with Poland. An exception is being made for Serbia, which refused to join in the sanctions.

Here, the message is simple: friendships that have lasted many centuries matter; what the Americans want is not what the Americans get; and the EU is a mere piece of paper.

Thus, the counter-sanctions are driving wedges between the US and the EU, and, within the EU, between Eastern Europe (which the sanctions are hurting the most) and Western Europe, and, most importantly, they drive home the simple message that the US is not Europe’s friend.

There is something else going on that is going to become more significant in the long run: Russia has taken the hint and is turning away from the West and toward the East. It is parlaying its open defiance of American attempts at world domination into trade relationships throughout the world, much of which is sick and tired of paying tribute to Washington. Russia is playing a key role in putting together an international banking system that circumvents the US dollar and the US Federal Reserve. In these efforts, over half the world’s territory and population is squarely on Russia’s side and cheering loudly. Thus, the effort to isolate Russia has produced the opposite of the intended result: it is isolating the West from the rest of the world instead.

In other ways, the sanctions are actually being helpful. The import ban on foodstuffs from EU is a positive boon to domestic agriculture while driving home a politically important point: don’t take food from the hands of those who bite you.

Russia is already one of the world’s largest grain exporters, and there is no reason why it can’t become entirely self-sufficient in food.

But this is only the beginning. The Russians seem to have finally realized to what extent the playing field has been slanted against them. They have been forced to play by Washington’s rules in two key ways: by bending to Washington’s will in order to keep their credit ratings high with the three key Western credit rating agencies, in order to secure access to Western credit; and by playing by the Western rule-book when issuing credit of their own, thus keeping domestic interest rates artificially high.

The result was that US companies were able to finance their operations more cheaply, artificially making them more competitive. But now, as Russia works quickly to get out from under the US dollar, shifting trade to bilateral currency arrangements (backed by some amount of gold should trade imbalances develop) it is also looking for ways to turn the printing press to its advantage.

To date, the dictat handed down from Washington has been: “We can print money all we like, but you can’t, or we will destroy you.” But this threat is ringing increasingly hollow, and Russia will no longer be using its dollar revenues to buy up US debt.

One proposal currently on the table is to make it impossible to pay for Russian oil exports with anything other than rubles, by establishing two oil brokerages, one in St. Petersburg, the other, seven time zones away, in Vladivostok.

Foreign oil buyers would then have to earn their petro-rubles the honest way—through bilateral trade—or, if they can’t make enough stuff that the Russians want to import, they could pay for oil with gold (while supplies last). Or the Russians could simply print rubles, and, to make sure such printing does not cause domestic inflation, they could export some inflation by playing with the oil spigot and the oil export tariffs. And if the likes of George Soros decides to attack the ruble in an effort to devalue it, Russia could defend its currency simply by printing fewer rubles for a while—no need to stockpile dollar reserves.

So far, this all seems like typical economic warfare: the Americans want to get everything they want by printing money while bombing into submission or sanctioning anyone who disobeys them, while the rest of the world attempts to resist them.

But early in 2014 the situation changed.

There was a US-instigated coup in Kiev, and instead of rolling over and playing dead like they were supposed to, the Russians mounted a fast and brilliantly successful campaign to regain Crimea, then successfully checkmated the junta in Kiev, preventing it from consolidating control over the remaining former Ukrainian territory by letting volunteers, weapons, equipment and humanitarian aid enter—and hundreds of thousands of refugees exit—through the strictly notional Russian-Ukrainian border, all the while avoiding direct military confrontation with NATO.

Seeing all of this happening on the nightly news has awakened the Russian population from its political slumber, making it sit up and pay attention, and sending Putin’s approval rating through the roof.

Russians remember Russia’s unique historical mission is among the nations of the world:

It is to thwart all other nations’ attempts at world domination, be it Napoleonic France or Hitleresque Germany or Obamaniac America.



Shortly after 9/11, in September 2001, the US embarked on a five-year plan to “take out” seven countries in five years. We have this on the authority of General Wesley Clark. According to Clark, an unnamed senior general at the Pentagon told him:

“We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”

Well, it looks like the American warmongers are eight years behind schedule. Because if things had worked out, they would have “got” Iran by September 2006.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. PNAC’s aim? The establishment of a global American empire which brought all other nations into subjugation, under American hegemony.

The central requirement was for the US  “to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.” For this they needed a pretext: “a new Pearl Harbor.” This they managed to find, by hook or by crook, in a remarkably short time: the catastrophe of 9/11 that was so convenient for Israel and such a bonanza for the American arms industry.

The entire thrust for world domination had the mark of international Jewry upon it, for it was through their control of America that the Jews sought to control the world.

Apart from a handful of Jewified non-Jews such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush, the neoconservatives behind PNAC—the animating spirits, so to speak—were almost all Jews: Bernard Lewis, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, William Kristol, and the crypto-Jew Rupert Murdoch.

Right now we are at a dangerous cross-roads. If the wrong road is taken, we can expect Armageddon: a Jew-created catastrophe such as the world has never known.

In the chilling words of William Rivers Pitt:

“There will be adverse side effects…. The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by [its] constabulary duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on us….As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous. Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. At home, the social fabric will be torn apart in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison. This is the price to be paid for empire…”

—  William Rivers Pitt, The Project for the New American Century


Every century or so some nation forgets its history lessons and attacks Russia.

The result is always the same: lots of corpse-studded snowdrifts, and then Russian cavalry galloping into Paris, or Russian tanks rolling into Berlin.

Who knows how it will end this time around? Perhaps it will involve polite, well-armed men in green uniforms without insignia patrolling the streets of Brussels and Washington, DC.

Only time will tell.

You’d think that Obama has already overplayed his hand, and should behave accordingly. His popularity at home is roughly the inverse of Putin’s, which is to say, Obama is still more popular than Ebola, but not by much. He can’t get anything at all done, no matter how pointless or futile, and his efforts to date, at home and abroad, have been pretty much a disaster.

So what does this social worker turned national mascot decide to do? Well, the way the Russians see it, he has decided to declare war on Russia! In case you missed it, look up his speech before the UN General Assembly. It’s up on the White House web site. He placed Russia directly between Ebola and ISIS among the three topmost threats facing the world. Through Russian eyes his speech reads as a declaration of war.

It’s a new, mixed-mode sort of war. It’s not a total war to the death, although the US is being rather incautious by the old Cold War standards in avoiding a nuclear confrontation. It’s an information war—based on lies and unjust vilification; it’s a financial and economic war—using sanctions; it’s a political war—featuring violent overthrow of elected governments and support for hostile regimes on Russia’s borders; and it’s a military war—using ineffectual but nevertheless insulting moves such as stationing a handful of US troops in Estonia.

The goals of this war are clear: it is to undermine Russia economically, destroy it politically, dismember it geographically, and turn it into a pliant vassal state that furnishes natural resources to the West practically free of charge.  But it doesn’t look like any of that is going to happen because, you see, a lot of Russians actually get all that, and will choose leaders who will not win any popularity contests in the West but who will lead them to victory.

Given the realization that the US and Russia are, like it or not, in a state of war, no matter how opaque or muddled, people in Russia are trying to understand why this is and what it means.

Obviously, the US has seen Russia as the enemy since about the time of the Revolution of 1917, if not earlier.

It is known that after the end of World War II America’s military planners were thinking of launching a nuclear strike against the USSR, and the only thing that held them back was the fact that they didn’t have enough bombs, meaning that Russia would have taken over all of Europe before the effects of the nuclear strikes could have deterred them from doing so.


the_american_world.png - b

Hugo Chavez once called Obama “a hostage in the White House,” and he wasn’t too far off. So, why are his advisers so eager to go to war with Russia, right now, this year?

Is it because the US is collapsing more rapidly than most people can imagine? This line of reasoning goes like this: the American scheme of world domination through military aggression and unlimited money-printing is failing before our eyes. The public has no interest in any more “boots on the ground,” bombing campaigns do nothing to reign in militants that Americans themselves helped organize and equip, dollar hegemony is slipping away with each passing day, and the Federal Reserve is fresh out of magic bullets and faces a choice between crashing the stock market and crashing the bond market.

In order to stop, or at least forestall this downward slide into financial/economic/political oblivion, the US must move quickly to undermine every competing economy in the world through whatever means it has left at its disposal, be it a bombing campaign, a revolution or a pandemic (although this last one can be a bit hard to keep under control).

Russia is an obvious target, because it is the only country in the world that has had the gumption to actually show international leadership in confronting the US and wrestling it down; therefore, Russia must be punished first, to keep the others in line.

I don’t disagree with this line of reasoning, but I do want to add something to it.

First, the American offensive against Russia, along with most of the rest of the world, is about things Americans like to call “facts on the ground,” and these take time to create. The world wasn’t made in a day, and it can’t be destroyed in a day (unless you use nuclear weapons, but then there is no winning strategy for anyone, the US included). But the entire financial house of cards can be destroyed rather quickly, and here Russia can achieve a lot while risking little.

Financially, Russia’s position is so solid that even the three Western credit ratings agencies don’t have the gall to downgrade Russia’s rating, sanctions notwithstanding.

This is a country that is aggressively paying down its foreign debt, is running a record-high budget surplus, has a positive balance of payments, is piling up physical gold reserves, and not a month goes by that it doesn’t sign a major international trade deal (that circumvents the US dollar).

In comparison, the US is a dead man walking: unless it can continue rolling over trillions of dollars in short-term debt every month at record-low interest rates, it won’t be able to pay the interest on its debt or its bills.

Good-bye, welfare state, hello riots. Good-bye military contractors and federal law enforcement, hello mayhem and open borders.

It must be understood that at this point the American ruling elite is almost entirely senile.

Your move America

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Terrorist Mikati Coordinated with MPs to Launch Major Attack against Leb. Army

Local Editor

Security sources revealed that the terrorist Ahmad Mikati who was arrested by the Lebanese Army on Thursday used to coordinate with one of the North’s MPs and plotted for launching a major attack against the Lebanese army.

The security sources added that the attack’s plot was devised so that it mimics the Douniyeh events in 2000 in order to distract the army and the security services away from Arsal, where the terrorist groups are trying to break the siege imposed on their dens on the bordering barrens by the Lebanese and the Syrian militaries by operating their dormant cells in Lebanon.

Terrorist Mikati

In a related context, DNA tests have confirmed that the scorched body at the raided Douniyeh apartment is that of defected soldier Abdol Qader al-Akkoumi, the army announced on Friday.

Army intelligence agents on Thursday raided an apartment in the town of Asoun in the northern district of Douniyeh, which was inhabited by a “group of terrorists,” killing three gunmen and apprehending a fugitive.

Source: Al-Manar Website

25-10-2014 – 02:06 Last updated 25-10-2014 – 02:06

Related Video


امتحان رفع الحصانة عن نائب إرهابي..الضاهر «أمير النصرة» بالشمال يصدر الأوامر بالتفجير

الاعترافات الأخطر التي أدلى بها أمير «داعش» في الشمال أبو بكر الميقاتي، تتصل بالتنسيق الأمني مع «أمير النصرة» في الشمال، 

وما يتصل بهذا التنسيق من تخزين سلاح ومتفجرات، وتنسيق تحريك مسلحين، وأموال، وتخطيط للأعمال الإرهابية المشتركة التي تستهدف الجيش والأمن، خصوصاً في منطقة الشمال، وصولاً إلى كيفية التعاون وتقاسم الأدوار والمهام، إذا تسنى للمجموعات التابعة لـ»داعش» و»النصرة» السيطرة على منطقة من محافظة الشمال، وخصوصاً الضنية المفتوحة شرقاً على سهل البقاع باتجاه عرسال، والمفتوحة غرباً على الساحل في منطقة مرفأ العبدة.

منذ مجزرة حلبا، التي سقط بنتيجتها شهداء قوميون، تنحّى المعنيون عن مسؤولياتهم في التحقيق، بداعي التفسير السطحي، وربط اهتمام القوميين بكون رفقائهم الشهداء هم الضحايا، واستبعاد الخلفية الإجرامية عن تصرفات الضاهر، ودوره في خلق مسرح مناسب لتخريب الأمن في الشمال ضمن مشروع كبير طويل النفس سابق للأحداث في سورية، وولادة تشكيلات حديثة العهد، يرتبط بالفكر التكفيري، الذي جعل له تيار المستقبل فرصة التغلغل في بيئته الشعبية وقدّمها له بالتهاون والتساهل والكيد السياسي على طبق من ذهب.

الذي جرى في فترة الحرب السورية من لبنان وفيه وعبره، من تسليح وسلاح ومسلحين، ووصولاً إلى الزجّ بمجموعات من أبناء الشمال، قتلوا في سورية، كان بتحريض وتنظيم الضاهر، والذي جرى بعدها من تنظيم الانتحاريين، جاء من البيئة المحسوبة على الضاهر سياسياً، والقريبة منه اجتماعياً وانتخابياً وخرج علناً يدافع ويبرّر، وصولاً إلى أحداث عرسال، والدور المعلوم بالتحريض على الجيش، والدعوة إلى الانشقاقات فيه وإجراء الاتصالات الموثقة لدى مخابرات الجيش، وبدلاً من أن ينتبه قادة تيار المستقبل لخطورة دور الضاهر، وينصتوا للتحذيرات المتتالية التي تردهم مما سيورّطهم فيه، قدم قادة التيار له التغطية وقدمت له كلّ فرص التغلغل بين مريديه، ليصير رمزاً لعداء زرع في نفوس كثير من المريدين للمقاومة وجمهورها وقيادتها واستسهال التطاول عليها، ليجده الضاهر أرضية مناسبة لعمل تنظيمي لحساب «النصرة»، عندما وقع الاختيار عليه أميراً لها في الشمال، كثير من الذين اعتقلوا متورّطون بأنشطة إرهابية كانوا يدلون في جزء من أقوالهم بمعلومات عن أدوار للضاهر في مسيرتهم، وكان يُطوى الحديث عنها والتحقيق فيها، لأنّ الحماية السياسية الممنوحة للضاهر، تجعله فوق الملاحقة، وتبني له جداراً يبدو أنّ دولة خليجية كانت تتدخل في كلّ مرة للتواصل مع المعنيين، لتبريد النوايا بالمتابعة وتقدّم الضمانات بعدم التورّط بأنشطة أمنية وحصر نشاطه بالشأن السياسي والإعلامي.

تأتي الوقائع الجديدة لتقول على أبواب التحضير للتمديد للمجلس النيابي، إذا كان العمى السياسي والعصبية سيؤديان لمنع الموافقة على طلب رفع الحصانة عن الضاهر ومن يظهر من زملائه متورّطاً، فالأفضل ترك المجلس ينهي ولايته بلا تمديد، والفراغ أهون من توفير التغطية لمواصلة التخريب بقوة الغطاء القانوني للحصانة النيابية، وكما علمت «البناء» أنّ لوبياً نيابياً داعماً للجيش سيتواصل مع الكتل النيابية، شارحاً خطورة بقاء الضاهر خارج الملاحقة، ولو كان الثمن عدم التمديد للمجلس النيابي وعدم قبول التهويل بالفراغ.

بدأت قنابل شبكة أبي بكر ميقاتي السياسية والأمنية تتفجر على الساحة الطرابلسية، بعد الاعترافات السريعة التي أدلى بها الأخير خلال التحقيق معه في وزارة الدفاع، كاشفاً عن الخيوط التي نسجتها خليته الإرهابية مع «نائب شمالي» تبين أنه النائب خالد الضاهر الذي بدأت قيادة الجيش تعد طلب رفع الحصانة النيابية عنه.

وأكدت مصادر عسكرية لـ»البناء» أن القيادة جادة في هذا الأمر، لافتة إلى أن زيارة قائد الجيش العماد جان قهوجي رئيس الحكومة تمام سلام أمس هدفها الطلب من سلام تبني طلب رفع الحصانة الذي سيرفعه وزير الدفاع الوطني سمير مقبل مرفقاً بتقرير من مفوض الحكومة لدى المحكمة العسكرية، إليه ليحيله بدوره إلى المجلس النيابي بحسب الأصول». وأشارت المصادر إلى أن قهوجي تمنى على رئيس الحكومة الإسراع في هذا الموضوع.

وفي الموازاة، طرحت تساؤلات عما سيكون عليه موقف تيار «المستقبل» الذي ينتمي الضاهر إلى كتلته، من هذا الموضوع.

ورفض وزير العدل أشرف ريفي التعليق على علاقة الضاهر برئيس الخلية الإرهابية أحمد سليم ميقاتي أبو بكر . وقال لـ»البناء»: «علينا معرفة حقيقة ما ذكر عن التواصل بين الضاهر والخلية الإرهابية قبل الإدلاء بأي تصريح»، رافضاً استباق الأمور.

اشتعال جبهة طرابلس

وبالتزامن اشتعلت بعض محاور طرابلس مساء، أثناء وبعد دهم قوة من الجيش عنصرين آخرين تابعين لمجموعة ميقاتي في حي المنكوبين، أحدهما من آل صالحة والثاني من آل الضناوي. وقد فوجئت القوة بظهور مسلح مفاجئ في المنطقة وإطلاق النار على عناصرها ما استدعى الرد من الجيش من دون وقوع إصابات. ومساء تجددت الاشتباكات بين عناصر من الجيش ومسلحين في الأسواق الداخلية للمدينة ولا سيما خان العسكر، والتربيعة لتمتد لاحقاً إلى سوقي العريض والصاغة والسرايا العتيقة.

وأدت الاشتباكات إلى سقوط 3 جرحى من عناصر الجيش، الذي استقدم تعزيزات إلى المنطقة، وبدأت وحداته بتمشيط السراديب تدريجياً في محاولة لمحاصرة المجموعة المسلحة وتضييق حركتها. وأغلق الجيش الطريق الرئيسية في شارع التل، مقابل الـ»أي بي سي»، ونزلة أبي سمراء، بالقرب من قلعة طرابلس.

في غضون ذلك، لا تزال قضية العسكريين المخطوفين تنتظر عودة الوسيط القطري المتوقعة قريباً إلى لبنان للبحث في شروط «جبهة النصرة» وتنظيم «داعش» لإطلاق المخطوفين.

ورأت أوساط عليمة بالملف أن مسألة الشروط ستأخذ الكثير من الأخذ والرد قبل بتها، مشيرة إلى أنه وبعكس ما يجري تداوله حول شروط المجموعات الإرهابية فان الموضوع الأهم لديها هو توفير ممر أمن لنقل ما تحتاجه من مؤن وأغذيه.

لبنان قد ينسحب من مؤتمر برلين

وفي خضم هذه التطورات، يتوجه الرئيس سلام إلى برلين الاثنين المقبل برفقة وفد وزاري، للمشاركة في المؤتمر الدولي المخصص لقضية النازحين السوريين وحيث سيقدم ورقة العمل التي أقرتها الحكومة لتنظيم النزوح إلى لبنان. وأكد وزير الخارجية جبران باسيل أن لبنان سينسحب من المؤتمر في حال لم تسحب الورقة المقدمة إليه والتي تعتبر لبنان دولة لجوء.


Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Zionist Troops Kill Palestinian in WB, Injure 15 Others in Occupied Jerusalem

Local Editor

ClashesIsraeli occupation forces shot and killed a Palestinian teenager late Friday during clashes in Silwad village near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, medical officials said.

The Zionist occupation troops also clashed with the Palestinians across the occupied Jerusalem on Friday, launching a widespread crackdown on Palestinian neighborhoods in the city late Wednesday.

The crackdown left 15 Palestinians injured or suffocated, according to media reports.

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tunisia’s al-Nahda changes its discourse ahead of key post-revolution election

Supporters of Tunisian Ennahda Party hold Tunisian national flag, party’s flags and shout slogans as the founder of Ennahda movement, Rashid al-Ghannushi, speaking during a rally ahead of Tunisian parliamentary election, which will be held on October 22, in Suleiman town of Nabeul, Tunisia, on October 22, 2014. (Photo: Anadolu Agency – Yassine Gaidi)
Published Friday, October 24, 2014
Sunday, October 26, will be the most important day for Tunisians since the ousting of former President Zein al-Abidine ben Ali. It will be the day they will elect the first parliament after the revolution to take on major tasks and powers, many of which have been in the hands of the national constituent assembly which was elected in October 2011.
Tunis – The election will take place under the new constitution ratified on December 26 to be followed by presidential elections. The central question today probably revolves around one of the most important parties in the Tunisian political scene, al-Nahda, which has governed the country in the past three years but is changing its discourse today to attract the largest number of votes.
After three years of being in power and the resentment that developed against the party among Tunisians, al-Nahda is trying to present a new “polished” image of itself. It abandoned a number of its leaders and founders by not nominating them to the parliamentary elections scheduled for Sunday because they presented a negative image of the party in the past three years of the life of the national constituent assembly.
The party’s electoral lists, which have been officially declared, lacked some of the historical figures associated with the oldest Islamist movement in Tunisia since its official inception under the name the Movement of Islamic Tendency in June 1981.
Among these figures is Sadok Chourou, nicknamed Tunisia’s Mandela because of the many years he spent in prison under Habib Bourguiba and Zein al-Abidine ben Ali. In almost three years of the life of the national constituent assembly, Chourou did not once take off the Afghan cloak he wears.
Another person that was not included is Habib Ellouze who is famous for wearing his traditional Tunisian clothes in the parliament and during his speeches calling for jihad in Syria and for implementing Islamic law and incorporating it into the constitution. The party list also excluded MP Najib Mourad representing the province of Monastir who is known for his pithy and hardline statements in addressing political issues.
Al-Nahda’s decision to abandon figures that played a prominent role in establishing the movement and expanding it by preaching in mosques during the 1970s and 1980s and who garnered more votes than the party leader, Rached Ghannouchi, at the party’s first public conference in June 2012 has more than one meaning in and outside Tunisia.
It is a message to Tunisian public opinion and the international community as well, stating that al-Nahda Party has definitively broke with the religious proselytizing discourse that has been associated with it since its inception. The demands and challenges of governance prompted the party to abandon this kind of discourse and adopt a civil political discourse instead that does not include declarations of disbelief against others and does not call for a religious state or for implementing Islamic law. In other words, it completely parted ways with the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood movements which adopt the Sayyid Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi school where implementing Islamic law represents the backbone of its discourse.

It [al-Nahda] completely parted ways with the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood movements which adopt the Sayyid Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi school where implementing Islamic law represents the backbone of its discourse.

The party uses its new discourse as proof of its good faith vis-à-vis the constitution it approved, a constitution that guarantees freedom of conscience – which no religious movement can embrace – safeguards women’s rights, calls for equality and preserves personal status law which outlaws polygamy. All this completely contradicts the discourse of Arab and Islamic religious movements. 
Al-Nahda is trying to promote this polished discourse before the election to avoid the weak performance of the two governments headed by al-Nahda leaders, Hamadi Jebali and Ali Laarayedh. Despite all that, the new discourse has not reassured Tunisians who have experienced al-Nahda for the past three years, saw its achievements and realize that it will be met with failure like its discourse in the 2011 election.
Before the October 2011 election, al-Nahda Party promoted a modernist discourse in which it stressed that it is a Tunisian party rooted in the legacy of Tunisia’s reform movement. But once it got into power, it started to reveal its true Muslim Brotherhood face.
It gave the green light to religious associations and clerics to wage a campaign to “Afghanize” Tunisia by promoting religious education in the Pakistani vein, restricting freedoms through what Ghannouchi calls the “dynamics of social pressures” and turning a blind eye to arms smuggling from Libya. 
Al-Nahda put its supporters in key government positions, recompensed its prisoners by recruiting them and providing them with monetary compensation, established a parallel network of media outlets, flooded the country with preachers from the Gulf and Egypt known for ideas alien to Tunisian society such as female circumcision and veiling young girls and legalized political parties openly hostile to the republican system and its values such as the Tahrir Party headed by Rida Belhaj and the Tunisia Zitouna Party headed by Adel Almi who called for beating Tunisians who choose not to fast during Ramadan, polygamy and abandoning the personal status law.

The country witnessed in the past three years a security collapse that began with targeting and assassinating figures opposed to al-Nahda Party like Lotfi Nagdh … leftist leader Chukri Beleid … and the Nasserist leader Mohammed Brahmi.

In addition, the country witnessed in the past three years a security collapse that began with targeting and assassinating figures opposed to al-Nahda Party like Lotfi Nagdh, representative of Nidaa Tounes (Tunisia’s Call) who is considered the first martyr under al-Nahda’s rule, leftist leader Chukri Beleid on February 6, 2013 and the Nasserist leader Mohammed Brahmi on July 25, 2013. 

Accusations were directly leveled at al-Nahda Party, especially the interior minister at the time and Prime Minister Ali Laarayedh for being directly responsible for the two assassinations. 

In addition, more than 50 individuals from the army, police and national guard were martyred, not to mention facilitating the travel of thousands of young men and women to Syria to fight the Syrian regime.
All this happened under al-Nahda’s rule. Will this party succeed once again in attracting Tunisian public opinion through its project and renew trust in its candidates for parliamentary and presidential elections? Or will Tunisians take into consideration what happened to them in the past three years from the rise in poverty and unemployment to discovering assassinations for the first time and the killing of soldiers and members of security forces and therefore hold al-Nahda accountable in the ballot box?
Al-Nahda Party runs for election with a heavy legacy whose motto is the “emerging dictatorship” as the head of its first government and its former Secretary-General Hamadi Jebali called it. The parties challenging it are counting on the slogan of regaining a democratic Tunisia to attract voters. What chance does al-Nahda have at the ballot box?
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Kurds Reject Erdogan Report of Deal with Syrian Rebels to Aid Besieged Kobani

Local Editor

Kurdish FightersA senior Syrian Kurdish official on Friday rejected a report from Turkey’s president that Syrian Kurds had agreed to let “Free Syrian Army” fighters enter the border town of Kobani to help them push back besieging ISIL terrorists.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday said 1,300 FSA fighters would enter Kobani after the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) agreed on their passage, but his comments were swiftly denied by Saleh Moslem, co-chair of the PYD.

“We have already established a connection with FSA but no such agreement has been reached yet as Mr. Erdogan has mentioned,” Moslem told Reuters by telephone from Brussels.

Turkey’s unwillingness to send its powerful army across the Syrian border to break the siege of Kobani has angered Kurds, and seems rooted in a concern not to strengthen Kurds who seek autonomy in adjoining regions of Turkey, Iraq and Syria.

Moslem said the FSA would be more helpful if it opened a second front against ISIL elsewhere in Syria. “Politically we have no objections to FSA….But in my opinion, if they really would like to help, then their forces should open another front, such as from Tel Abyad or Jarablus,” he said.

Source: Reuters
24-10-2014 – 21:18 Last updated 24-10-2014 – 21:18


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 441 other followers