Jaafari on Golan: Trump Tweet Flagrant Violation, Contempt for International Law

Bashar Jaafari Syria UN Representative Ambassador - UNSC بشار الجعفري مندوب سوريا الدائم لدى الأمم المتحدة - سفير

His Excellency Bashar al Jaafari issued an urgent statement on Syria’s Golan, via a UN stake out, 22 March 2019. While maintaining his immaculate standard of professional diplomat, the Syrian ambassador crushed US President Donald J. Trump’s “irresponsible tweeting.” He laid waste to the escalation of “American arrogance,” and explained the many UN Security Council Resolutions which support Syria’s sovereignty over its Golan, resolutions which call for the end of illegal Israeli occupation.

Golan
Though there were a substantial number of reporters present, at this writing, AFP is the lone MSM service to write an anemic short, ignoring all key points on Trump’s criminal plot to authorize the theft of Syria’s Golan.

Dr. Jaafari explained to his audience there is no “Golan heights,” there is only the Syrian Golan. The word “heights” was affixed by Israeli propagandists as part of its psychological warfare campaign to make its illegal occupation appear more powerful.

Syria’s ambassador read a five-minute statement in Arabic, followed by its English translation, after which he took questions from the reporters.

One reporter said that Syria’s official request for the UNSG to publicly condemn Trump’s aggression was met by a generic response that the SG stands by all resolutions, but is not ready to condemn the US president’s tweet.

Golan
Syria officially called on the UN to put an end to “American arrogance” of Trump’s mafioso-type plan to give that which is not his, but Syria’s, Golan, to its illegal Israeli occupiers.

Here, the author interjects to again remind our readers of the corruption and bias of Antonio Guterres — Guterres, the friend of war criminal Tony Blair, Guterres whose own imperialist arrogance contains putting lies in writing. Consider his claim that the OPCW “fact-finding mission” was “in the Syrian Arab Republic,” despite OPCW’s admission it was too afraid of terrorists to actually send in investigators.

Diplomat Jaafari meticulously explained that Trump’s imperious tweet — “diplomacy now about tweeting, apparently” — was contemptuous of the international community, showed “flagrant violation of international law, the charter of the UN and the simplest…values and ethics,” and demonstrated escalation against member states of the United Nations: It’s “my way or the highway.”

Golan
You can’t declare war with everybody [though that is basically what Trump did when he spoke at UNGA in September]. The 100th year anniversary of the League of Nations is approaching, & Trump is trying to move international law to pre-1918.

Before taking questions, the Syrian diplomat asked everyone to focus exclusively on the Golan. He told them that there would be another “humanitarian meeting” on the 27th, at which time they could ask all questions. His request to “Please let us focus on this important issue” of course fell on deaf western ears, as someone immediately asked about Trump’s statistics on the remaining “Islamic State.”

Excellency Jaafari did respond, however, to educate the reporter that there is no such thing, there is “a bunch of terrorists gathered from all over the world…all kinds of hyenas.”

Golan
“Allies performed records in demolishing infrastructure.” H.E. Jaafari was speaking of the Fascist Coalition of war criminals against Syria.

One English-speaking colonialist whined from a State Department-type script, about these being “different times.” Nu, is it not always different times? Since when does the movement of the planet legitimize theft, authorize a third party to declare theft to be lawful?

Golan
UNSCR 242 (1967). Israel must return the Golan to its legal country, Syria.

Not surprisingly, one of the most fetid collections of questions came from an incel-sounding voice claiming to be of the Middle East Eye. “MEE is the offspring of the inbred relationship of UK’s The Guardian and Qatar’s al-Jazeera, consistently supportive of NATO Spring takfiri in Syria.

“MEE”‘s first question was sheer idiocy, suggesting that a tweet has the power to legalize a crime. The second question was an attempt to propagandize against Syria’s Golan, and to propagandize for future hypothetical victimhood of Israeli occupiers on the Golan which belongs to the SAR.

Syrians on Syria’s Golan fly the Syrian flag.

Dr. Jaafari carefully explained that Syria will regain that which it owns, and that there are no Israeli civilians on Syrian land: “They are settlers, not civilians. They must leave.”

Golan
“What is the alternative to diplomacy? You know the answer.” “When you have no other choice to get back your rights, it’s your duty.”

Multiple attempts were made to provoke Dr. Jaafari into a response to create another wave of anti-Syria hysteria in western media. His character state of professional diplomat is likely the reason his urgent statement on Trump’s criminal tweet in support of Israel’s criminal occupation of the Golan has been ignored by “mainstream media.”

ADDENDA:

Ambassador Jaafari’s statement focused on UNSC Resolutions supporting Syria’s ownership of its Golan.

We remind our readers that both the US and Israel are signatories to the Geneva treaties, which have strict principles governing occupation, which is supposed to be temporary:

golan
Principles governing occupation.

We also remind our readers that Israel has bragged about providing terrorists with state of the art medical care on the Syrian Golan, which it occupies; that Israeli medium reported that Israel is the number one purchaser of oil stolen by terrorists; that Israel breaches all of the principles governing what is supposed to be temporary occupation.

The US Enables Deliberate Saudi Attacks on Civilian Targets in Yemen

Source

Originally appeared on The American Conservative.

UNICEF reports on the latest Saudi coalition attack on a water system in Saada. This is the third time that the same site has been bombed:

UNICEF deplores in the strongest terms yet another attack on vital and lifesaving water systems in Yemen.

A large water facility in Sa’ada, northwest of the country, came under attack this week. This is the third such attack on the same facility. More than half of the project is now damaged, cutting off 10,500 people from safe drinking water.

Continuous attacks on water systems in Yemen are cutting off children and their families from water; increasing the likelihood of water-borne diseases spreading in the war-torn country.

The Saudi coalition deliberately attacks civilian targets in Yemen. Just as they struck the MSF-run cholera treatment center once and then blew it up again after it had been rebuilt, they have repeatedly attacked this vital infrastructure needed to provide clean drinking water to Yemeni civilians in Saada. This is the second time the coalition has struck this site this year. I wrote about the previous attack back in April:

The destruction of infrastructure needed to provide clean drinking water for civilians is clearly a violation of international law, and the fact that the same system has been targeted more than once should put to rest the idea that the coalition strikes these targets only by accident. Just as it has systematically and deliberately attacked food production and distribution inside Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition repeatedly strikes at the infrastructure that the population needs for water and sewage treatment.

The coalition is repeatedly striking at the medical facilities and infrastructure needed to prevent the spread of cholera in a country suffering from the worst modern cholera epidemic on record. There have already been well over a million cases, and the deteriorating conditions in the country could cause that number spike upwards. The coalition obviously carries out these attacks on purpose, and they keep doing it because they are never held accountable for their crimes. The Saudis and their allies use both starvation and disease as weapons against the civilian population of Yemen in a policy of cruel collective punishment. The U.S. continues to provide unstinting support to the coalition campaign and makes attacks like this possible. Congress needs to cut off all U.S. support for the war on Yemen now, and every day that U.S. involvement continues our government is complicit in crimes like the one committed against these civilians in Saada.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at The American Conservative, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter. This article is reprinted from The American Conservative with permission.

Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

Lies and Deception in the Failed US Strike on Syria

At 4am on April 14, the United States, France and the United Kingdom executed a strike on Syria. The Syrian Free Press reported:

US Navy warships in the Red Sea and Air Force B-1B bombers and F-15 and F-16 aircraft rained dozens of ship- and air-launched cruise missiles down on the Syrian capital of Damascus, an airbase outside the city, a so-called chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, and an equipment-storage facility and command post, also near Homs. B1-Bs are typically armed with JASSM cruise missiles, which have a 450 kg warhead and a range of 370 kms. US Navy warships launched Tomahawks, which have 450 kg warheads and an operational range of between 1,300 and 2,500 kms. The British Royal Air Force’s contingent for the assault consisted of four Tornado GR4 ground-attack aircraft armed with the Storm Shadow long-range air-to-ground missile, which the UK’s Defense Ministry said targeted ‘chemical weapons sites’ in Homs. These weapons have a range of 400 kms. Finally, France sent its Aquitaine frigate, armed with SCALP naval land-attack cruise missiles (SCALP is the French military’s name for the Storm Shadow), as well as several Dassault Rafale fighters, also typically armed with SCALP or Apache cruise missiles. According to the Russian defense ministry, the B-1Bs also fired GBU-38 guided air bombs. Undoubtedly weary of the prospect of having their aircraft shot down after Israel lost one of its F-16s over Syria in February, the Western powers presumably launched their weapons from well outside the range of Syrian air defenses, with all the targets located just 70-90 kms from the Mediterranean Sea, and having to fly through Lebanon first.

Recapping the information on the strike, the US and its allies used the following assets:

● 2 destroyers (USS Laboon, USS Higgins)

● 1 US cruiser (USS Monterey)

● 1 French frigate (Georges Leygues)

● 5 Rafale jets

● 4 Mirage 2000-5F

● 4 British Tornado fighter-bombers

● Virginia-class submarine USS John Warner

● 2 US B-1B bombers

Their ordnance brought to bear consisted of the following:

● The cruiser Monterey launched 30 Tomahawk missiles

● The destroyer Higgins 23 Tomahawks

● The destroyer Laboon 7 Tomahawks

● The submarine John Warner 6 Tomahawks

● 2 B-1 bombers 21 JASSM missiles

● 4 British Tornado GR4 fighter bombers 16 Storm-shadow missiles.

● The French Languedoc fired 3 MdCN land-attack missiles.

The US Pentagon reports the strike group targeted:

– 76 missiles at the Barzah research center in Damascus:

(Source)

– 22 missiles at an undefined “chemical” structure:

(Source)

– 7 missiles against an undefined “chemical bunker”:

(Source)

The Syrian anti-aircraft forces responded, firing a total of 112 air-defence missiles:

● the Pantsyr system fired 25 missiles and hit 24 targets;

● the Buk system fired 29 missiles and hit 24 targets;

● the Osa system fired 11 and hit 5 targets;

● the S-125 system fired 13 missiles and hit 5 targets;

● the Strela-10 system fired 5 missiles and hit 3 targets;

● the Kvadrat system fired 21 and hit 11 targets;

● the S-200 system fired 8 and hit no targets.

(Source)

The Russians have stated that the target of the raids and the effectiveness of the missiles have resulted in a big fiasco for the Americans:

● 4 missiles were launched targeting the area of the Damascus International Airport; these 4 missiles were intercepted.

● 12 missiles were launched targeting the Al-Dumayr Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.

● 18 missiles were launched  targeting the Bley Military Airport; these 18 missiles were intercepted.

● 12 missiles were launched targeting the Shayarat Military Airport; these 12 missiles were intercepted.

● 9-15 missiles were launched  targeting the Mezzeh Military Airport; 5 of them were intercepted.

● 16 missiles were launched targeting the Homs Military Airport; 13 of which were intercepted.

● 30 missiles were launched targeting targets in the areas of Barzah and Jaramani; 7 of which were intercepted.

The effectiveness of the attack is called into question, especially in light of the prompt reaction of the civilian population that took to the streets in support of Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government only a few hours after the US-led attack.

(Celebrations the morning of the 14th of April in Umayyad Square, Damascus )

What emerges immediately from the Syrian/Russian and American narratives are contrasting assessments of the outcome of the attack.

We can certainly try to dispute some statements. The Americans repeated that at least two chemical-weapons laboratories together with a chemical-weapons storage center were affected. As evidenced by the images shot by PressTV a few hours after the attack, the structure is destroyed but there are no chemical contaminations. To confirm this, the television operators were able to perform interviews and live footage a few meters from the site of the strike without experiencing any physical effects, which would have been impossible were the American version of events true, given that the release of chemical agents would have made the whole area inaccessible.

Further confirmation comes from Ammar Waqqaf interviewed on The Heat on CGTV, claiming that his relatives were about 500 meters from one of the alleged chemical-weapons research centers attacked by the Americans. Ammar says that even in this case, no chemical agent appears to have been released, thus disproving Washington’s claims.

Another important consideration concerns the targets. For Washington, the targets were limited to research laboratories (Barzah and Jaramani) and storage centers. But Moscow revealed that the objectives also included military bases as well as the civilian Damascus International Airport, namely: Al-Dumayr Military Airport, Bley Military Airport, Shayarat Military Airport, Mezzeh Military Airport, Homs Military Airport. These were mostly unsuccessful attacks.

In light of the foregoing, we can assume that the operational goal of the Americans was twofold. On the one hand, it was aimed at the media, to show a response to the (false) accusations of a chemical attack in Douma (Robert Frisk has just dismantled the propaganda and RT reminds us of the various false flags perpetrated by the US in the past to start wars); on the other, it was used by the military to actually permanently damage the Syrian Air Force, as suggested by the warmongering neocon Lindsey Graham. The failure of this latter objective could be seen in the following hours when the Syrian planes resumed operational tasks.

What does all this information tell us? First of all, the American goal was not to hit the non-existent chemical weapons or their production sites. The aim was to reduce as much as possible Syrian Air Force assets at different military airports. The mission was a failure, as reported by the Russian military envoy in Syria thanks to the air-defense measures of the Syrian forces as well as probably a high electronic-warfare (EW) contribution from the Russian forces present in the country. Very little has been leaked out in technical terms from the Russian Federation, which officially states that it did not contribute towards defending against the attack. It is probable that Russia played a decisive role in terms of EW, with its little-known but highly effective systems as demonstrated in previous attacks in 2017.

Moscow has no interest in promoting its cutting-edge EW systems, and often does not confirm the reports issued by more or less government agencies, as in the case of the USS Donald Cook in 2014. Yet Russia Beyond explains EW as probably being fundamental in foiling the American attack:

Before the electronic jamming system kicks in, the aircraft scans the radio signals in its zone of ​​activity. After detecting the traffic frequencies of the enemy’s equipment, the operator on board the aircraft enables the jamming system in the required bandwidth,” a defense industry source told Russia Beyond. In addition to onboard systems, there are ground-based Krasnukha-4 EW complexes stationed around the Khemeimim airbase, Russia’s key stronghold in the Middle East. Their purpose is to suppress enemy “eavesdropping” and weapons guidance systems. The Krasnukha-4 blinds enemy radar systems to targets at a distance of 250 km.

The general public is yet to understand that the American attack was a complete fiasco, much to the irritation of Lindsey Graham, thereby confirming Damascus’s narrative, which presented Syria’s response as decisive and effective.

The logic of the matter must also be considered. We know that the US and her allies launched 105 missiles aimed at various targets, including some military bases, but none of them hit the targets indicated, except for two buildings already emptied previously and a non-existent chemical-weapons depot. The Pentagon amplified the military report with the lie that only two research centers and a chemical-weapons depot were intentionally bombed with something like 105 missiles; this in order to account for the number of missiles launched and to drown out other assessments that contradict the preferred narrative. But it is ridiculous to believe that the US used 76 missiles to hit three buildings. A much more plausible explanation is that there were many more targets but only three of them were hit, this measly success carrying zero tactical or strategic importance.

We should ask ourselves what the real goal of Washington was. First, let us split the story into two parts. On the one hand we have a PR exercise, and on the other an intended military strategy. In the first case, Washington was able to pursue its self-assigned role as “protector of the weak”, like those victims of the alleged Douma chemical attack. The intended optics were those of a humanitarian intervention, in line with the West’s self-assigned role of regent of the post-World War II neoliberal world order. In reality, we know very well that US hegemony is based on millions of deaths in dozens of wars scattered around the globe. According to the fictitious narrative of the media, it all boils down to good-guys-versus-bad-guys, and Assad is the bad guy while the US is the good guy punishing the regime for the use of chemical weapons.

The success of PR exercise depends very little on the military outcome and much more on the story as told by the media. It is based solely on the affirmation of the role taken up by the US and her allies, that of being in the right and driven only by the noblest interests. But such a series of unreasonable lies has only served to drag the world into chaos, diminished the role of the mainstream media, and destroyed the credibility of practically the whole Western political class.

From a military point of view, however, the goals, intent and results show a far more disturbing result for Washington and her allies. Soviet-era weapons that were updated by Moscow and integrated into the Russian air defense infrastructure network severely degraded the effectiveness of the American attack. Washington wanted to ground the entire Syrian air force, hitting air bases with precision, but failed in this objective. It remains to be seen whether this attack was a prelude to something bigger, with the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group currently heading towards Syrian territorial waters. Following the logic of deconfliction with Russia, it seems unlikely that a more intense attack will occur, rumors even circulating that Mattis dissuaded Trump from targeting Russian and Iranian targets, being well aware of the risks in a Russian response.

Let us focus for a moment on the risks in this kind of scenario. We are told that it would have brought about World War Three. This is probably true. But the consequences could also entail something much worse for Washington than for the rest of the world. The rhetoric that an American attack on Russian forces in Syria would trigger a direct war between the two superpowers is certainly true, but perhaps it is wrong in its interpretation. The danger seems to lie less in the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse and more in exposing the US’s inability to go toe to toe with a peer competitor.

While we cannot (and hope not to) test this hypothesis, we can certainly join the dots. If Soviet-era systems, with a slight Russian modernization, can nullify an American attack, what could the Russian forces do themselves? They could probably even block an attack of the scale visited on Baghdad, where several hundred missiles were directed towards civilian and military targets. It would be highly unlikely in such a scenario for Washington to peddle the false propaganda of a successful attack with little in terms of bomb-damage assessment commensurate with the number of missiles launched.

Already in the April 14 attack, the explanation that 76 cruise missiles were directed against three buildings is ridiculous but is nevertheless sustained thanks to the lies of the mainstream media and the paucity of available information. However, when thinking of 500 Tomahawks launched with limited damage to the Syrian infrastructure, even that would be impossible to sell to a very ignorant and deceived public. It would be the definitive proof of the decline in American military effectiveness and the potency of Russian air-defense systems. Just like during Putin’s presentation of new weapons some months back, when the Empire feels its core (military power) is threatened, it simply dismisses such reports as false, in the process becoming a victim of its own propaganda.

Yet one would only need to listen to the words of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Michael Griffin, in a conference at the Hudson Institute where he explained how Moscow and Beijing capabilities are far more advanced in hypersonic and supersonic missile defense and attack capabilities. He openly explained that Washington takes about 16 years to implement a paper-to-service idea, while its rivals in a few years have shown that they can move from concept to practical development, gaining a huge advantage over rivals like Washington.

The problem is inherent for the United States in its need to keep alive a war machine based on inflated military spending that creates enormous pockets of corruption and inefficiency. Just look at the F-35 project and its constant problems. Although Moscow’s spending is less than twelve times that of the United States, it has succeeded in developing systems like hypersonic missiles that are still in the testing phase in the United States, or systems like the S-500, which the US does not possess.

The S-300, S-400, P-800 anti-ship missiles and the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missiles, in addition to EW, pose a fundamental problem for Washington in dealing with attacks against a peer competitor. The military in Washington are probably well aware of the risks of revealing the US to be a paper tiger, so they prefer to avoid any direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, more for the purposes of maintaining military prestige than out of a desire to avoid risking World War Three. If Russian forces ever were targeted by the US, in all probability Moscow would simply disable the electronics of the US ship rather than sinking it, leaving it to float in the Mediterranean uncontrolled for days.

The last fig leaf hiding the US military’s inadequacy rests in Hollywood propaganda that presents the US military as practically invincible. Accordingly, some sites have spread stories that Russia had been forewarned of the attack and that the whole bombing event was the same sort of farce as a year ago. In the first place, it is important to clarify that Moscow had not been given advanced warning of the targets, and the reason for this is simple: the attack was real and, as explained above, did not succeed precisely because of Moscow and Damuscus’s effective parries and blocks.

In reality, Washington has failed in its military strategy, and the media have turned to the usual propaganda of chemical weapons and the need to enforce justice in the world and proclaim a non-existent success. In the meantime, Moscow fine-tunes its weapons and prepares to deliver the S-300 to the Syrian state and its allies (Lebanon?), effectively limiting Washington’s ability to attack in the Middle East. This is a fitting conclusion for a story that has only damaged the status of the United States and her allies in the Middle East, bringing Syria closer to a final victory.

Syria, Morning After “Horrible American Strikes”- Syrians Are Partying On Damascus Streets

WW3 in Europe against Russia would be a win/win situation for the USA

Who’s Driving the Latest Nato Exercises?

Written by Lindsey German

The escalating tensions with Russia should be of concern to everyone says Lindsey German

NatoMayhem564

‘Britain is part of the deployment across eastern Europe, sending 800 troops to Estonia’


This week we are witnessing another example of politicians and military figures talking peace but preparing for war. A thousand US troops have arrived in Poland as part of a 4000-strong deployment, its largest since the Cold War and brought forward to predate the inauguration of Donald Trump. The move is being driven by a decision at the Nato summit in Warsaw last year, itself reflecting the expansionist politics of Nato vis a vis Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, a major Nato policy has been eastward expansion right up to the borders of Russia, incorporating within its membership all the eastern European countries which have signed up to the EU since 2004, and demanding Nato membership as a future condition of membership.

It also reflects the desires of the very right wing governments in Poland and the Baltic states who have been at the forefront of pushing for a more aggressive Nato policy against Russia. Britain is part of the deployment across eastern Europe, sending 800 troops to Estonia. In addition, Germany is expanding its military role, hence a growing support for militarism there. In addition to US troops there are hundreds of US armoured vehicles and tanks in Germany to be transported to Poland and elsewhere. Already the troops have brought in bags full of US flags for grateful Poles to wave, as though the troop manoeuvres are some sort of liberation for the people of Poland, rather than back up for its increasingly right wing government.

These manoeuvres will not de-escalate tensions with Russia. They are not designed to. Instead, they mark the escalation of Nato policy over recent years. When the Cold War ended, the agreement between the west and Russia was that Nato would not expand eastwards beyond the reunited Germany. The opposite has happened. The escalating tensions with Russia should be of concern to everyone. This is not to imply any support whatsoever for Putin or his policies but it is to recognise that Nato is pursuing an aggressive policy, not a defensive one.

It is also to recognise that anti-Russian sentiment in the west is probably greater than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The furore in the US over Trump’s relations with Russia must surely be seen in part as an attempt to prevent him from any closer relations with Russia – a position in which he is quite isolated within the Republican party. In Britain in recent months, there have been scares over Russian planes and ships near British territory. Yet it is widely acknowledged that there is no immediate or even medium term threat of Russian invasion in Eastern Europe. The danger is that increased troop movements can lead to much greater tensions, possibly accompanied by accidents or misunderstandings which can lead to conflict.

Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman was surely right therefore to caution over the latest troop deployments when he talked to journalists yesterday. “Jeremy has said repeatedly that he has lots of criticisms of the Russian government, both in relation to what has happened in the Middle East and domestically. But what we don’t want to see is a ratcheting up of tensions between Russia and the west, as has been taking place. We want talks and engagement to wind down military tensions, particularly on the Russian/Nato border and in the Middle East.”

Who could argue with that? Well apparently, the shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith is ‘livid’ about it. She shouldn’t be. Labour has spent far too long following the line of the Ministry of Defence (Griffith went on a trip to Estonia with the MOD) and of right wing commentators in supporting wars. Yet the record is appalling. The Middle East is in part destroyed after Iraq, Libya and Syria, and Afghanistan remains mired in war. Meanwhile the tensions across Europe are worsening. The people who brought us the past wars are the same as those urging further military intervention now.

One reason Corbyn has been elected twice as Labour leader is his opposition to such wars and his concerns for promoting peace rather than war. Unfortunately, the record of many Labour MPs is nowhere near as good. They have shown recently over debates on Chilcot and Saudi Arabia an unwillingness to confront their past mistakes and a blind commitment to supporting all wars.

With a Trump presidency beginning next week, the world is in dangerous and uncharted waters. Labour politicians should not be arguing for increasing instability. Nor should they view British troops in a sabre-rattling exercise in Estonia as doing anything useful. In addition, given the huge crisis over the NHS and care, surely this money could be far better spent.

2016 US Election Result: Yet More War

2016 US Election Result: Yet More War

‘Far from deterring the US’s opponents in the Middle East, the more muscular approach is likely to draw all sides into deeper conflict’

Raceoftheunloved564


What will the US election mean for the country’s involvement in wars and interventions? The answer is, whoever wins it’s likely to get worse. This lies in part in the nature of the candidates. Trump may talk isolationism but is unlikely to go down that road, given the concerns of important sections of the US ruling class –  not that there is not too much military action being carried out by its armed forces, but too little. Trump is, in any case, wildly unpredictable on these questions.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is all too predictable. Her record as Secretary of State was consistently hawkish, from her endorsement of the regime change in Libya in 2011, her intervention in the Syrian war from 2012 onwards and her public glee at the deaths of Gadaffi and Bin Laden. It is clear that her election to the presidency will herald an escalation of intervention in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

In this, she reflects the concerns by many of those involved with formulating foreign policy that Obama has been too averse to military action, and in particular that the US should engage in ‘limited’ airstrikes using cruise missiles, and that it should enforce no fly zones or ‘safe’ zones to stop Syrian and Russian bombing. An article in the Washington Post talks of a number of forthcoming reports and analyses which reflect an increasingly bipartisan approach to foreign policy and especially to Syria.

The article says: ‘Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.’ This in itself is an admission of the failure of US foreign policy going back decades. The fall of Saddam’s Iraq strengthened his rival Iran – certainly an unintended consequence of the US intervention. The ‘chaos in the Middle East’ cannot be extricated from the wars, occupations and bombings which have been constant for a decade and a half. And the need to ‘check Russia in Europe’ is the justification for US backed Nato expansion which now stretches to Russian western borders.

Enforcing no fly zones or any variants thereof will not be a means to promoting peace, but a further military escalation of the war, as will further bombing or missile attacks. According to Brian Katulis, a Middle East analyst at the Centre for American Progress, ‘Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding a more muscular and more “centrist internationalism.”’

Far from deterring the US’s opponents in the Middle East, the more muscular approach is likely to draw all sides into deeper conflict.

The only barrier to this course is the lack of support for such action among public opinion in the US. As is the case in Britain, the lessons of these wars have been better learnt by the people who suffer as a result of them than they have been by the politicians

First NATO causes Libya’s refugee problem and now it goes to war against them

The next war in Libya will be against refugees

Plans have already been drawn up to send around 1,000 UK troops says Chris Nineham

CNLibPic


‘A lot of Libyans think of it as a puppet government.’ So said Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya on the BBC on Monday, about the new regime trying to establish itself in Libya.

The Libyans would be right. Fayez al Sarraj, so called ‘Prime Minister designate’ was shipped in on a Saudi warship from exile in Tunisia last month. Neither of the existing authorities in Libya, including the Tobruk House of Representatives which can claim some democratic mandate, backs Sarraj. He is still holed up with his team in a heavily guarded naval base on the edge of Tripoli because it is unsafe for him to travel in the country.

This week, the G5 powers met in Berlin partly to express support for Sarraj and to plan how best to impose his government on the Libyan people. The week before, British Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond visited Libya to meet Sarraj and give what he describes as his ‘full support’.

The unseemly scramble to enforce the Sarraj government is driven by two main concerns. First, anxiety about advances made by Isis into key oil producing areas. US officials have expressed worry that Isis is using its occupation of the key port of Sirte to take over the oil and gas rich towns of Ras Lanuf and Sidra which would allow it strategic control of the whole Sirte Basin production area. Libya is the second most important gas producer in the world and the closest major oil producer to Europe.

The second main driver is the refugee crisis. The EU deal with Turkey is an attempt to close down refugee access to Europe via the eastern route. This, and the warmer weather, has increased the flow from the south over the Mediterranean crossing, with tragic results. Working in close co-ordination, the EU, NATO and the UN have been unrolling a military plan, Operation Sophia, to stem the flow and force the refugees back to Africa.  

A UK government source said Operation Sophia ‘has achieved a lot in terms of bringing the numbers down. But one of the challenges is that it is only operating on the high seas.’The problem is in other words, that any push back of refugees would need a viable partner on the mainland.

This is where Sarraj comes in. Not only will he co-operate with the clampdown against refugees, crucially, western leaders are confident he will invite western military in to help. NATO is pushing for a 6,000 strong military force from Europe to go in. Plans have already been drawn up to send around 1,000 UK troops, ostensibly to train up a new Libyan army. But any foreign force of that size in a country riven by war is almost bound to get involved in combat.

The scepticism on the ground in Libya is learnt from bitter experience. Last time the western powers organised an intervention in Libya in 2011, the no-fly zone and the resulting bombing raids were presented as an operation to head off a regime attack on Benghazi, the centre of opposition.

Benghazi was secured in a few days. What followed was five months of some of the most intensive bombing in history during which time 30-40,000 people died. The operation ended with the killing of President Ghaddafi in what independent observers reported was a western orchestrated operation. Barely able to contain her excitement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented ‘We came, we saw, he died’.  As well as killing on an industrial scale, the bombardment devastated the country’s infrastructure and led directly to the country’s political fragmentation. It was these conditions that IS were able to exploit to establish control of important sections of the coastal strip.

The plans for Libya are the direct opposite of a humanitarian intervention. They want us to go to war against the refugees. We must not let them.

Source: Stop the War Coalition

US-led Coalition Strikes Syrian Army instead of ’ISIS’: Several Dead, Injured

US-led coalition warplanes are reported to have killed four Syrian soldiers in the Dier al Zor province, which is mostly under the control of “ISIS”. 

A Syrian government source confirmed that the airstrike had taken place and that there had been casualties. The source also added that vehicles had been destroyed.

 A total of four Syrian Army soldiers have been killed, while a further 16 were injured, a government source told RIA Novosti.
 “The airstrike hit an ammunition dump belonging to the Syrian Army in Dier al Zor. According to our information, four soldiers have died and 16 were injured. Two tanks were also damaged. This was the work of the US-led coalition,” the government source added.
The so-called Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said an air raid “by the international coalition” hit the camp in the west of Deir Ezzor province, “around two kilometers one mile from an area controlled by “ISIS”.
 “Regime forces have never previously been hit by raids from the international coalition, which was targeting extremist bases and oil tankers in Deir Ezzor,” Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.
 The Dier al Zor province is eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by “ISIS”.The region is of extreme strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for “ISIS”.
 On November 24, a Turkish Air Force F-16 jet shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber over Syria.

Ankara claims the Russian plane briefly crossed into Turkish airspace. One of the Russian pilots was killed by Syrian rebels as he ejected from the stricken plane, while the other was rescued in a swift operation during which one Russian serviceman was killed.

 Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team
 07-12-2015 | 10:22

 US-Led Coalition Targets Military Base in Deir Ezzor: 3 Syrian Soldiers Martyred

Damascus said on Monday that three Syrrian soldiers were martyred when US-led coalition warplanes struck a Syrian army post in Deir Ezzor.

“Four US-led coalition warplanes targeted with 9 rockets one of the Syrian army’s posts in Deir Ezzor province, claiming the lives of 3 soldiers and injuring 13 others,” the Syrian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The strike also destroyed “three armored vehicles, four military vehicles, 23 mm machinegun, 14.5 machinegun and a depot of arms and ammunition,” the statement added.

The ministry said it had sent a letter o the UN Secretary General and Chairman of the UN Security Council in which Damascus “strongly condemns this heinous aggression by the coalition and affirms that it contradicts with the goals and wills of the UN Charter.”

“Syria called on the Security Council to immediately take the urgent measures to prevent such aggressions from occurring again, adding that the aggression on the military post hinders the efforts aiming to fight terrorism and reiterates that the US-led coalition lacks seriousness and credibility in the fight against terrorism,” SANA news agency cited the Syrian foreign ministry’s letter as saying.

Related Videos

 

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!

Emergency Protests Across UK: Don’t Let Cameron Take Us into Another War

Global Research, December 01, 2015
Stop the War Coalition 30 November 2015

syria_parliament_dont_bomb_460_3

David Cameron has announced that MPs will vote this Wednesday 2 December on bombing Syria. 

Stop the War is asking all its groups and supporters to protest tomorrow night, Tuesday 1 December, against plans for bombing .

In London we will be assembling at 6pm in Parliament Square where we will hold a rally and then march to Labour and Tory Party headquarters, both nearby.

Elsewhere there will be protests in town and city centres around the country.

Our campaigning has already made a big impact and been widely reported. Over 40,000 people have already lobbied their MPs via the Stop the War website alone.

The Mirror, the Mail, The Financial Times and Observer have all come out against bombing, recognising how incoherent and dangerous David Cameron’s plans are.

We are urging people to use the little remaining time and every means available to maximise the pressure on MPs.

Please encourage everyone you can to lobby their MP by phone or email and publicise the protests as widely as possible.

We must do everything we can to stop MPs voting the UK into its fourth war on a Muslim country in 14 years.

Facebook Event…

This page will be updated as we get more information. Follow theDon’t Bomb Syria Action Page for updates of protests round the country.

Source: Stop the War Coalition

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!

Why has the USA invaded, occupied or bombed 14 Muslim countries in 30 years?

Why has the US invaded, occupied or bombed 14 Muslim countries in 30 years?

After the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, the region is now a cauldron of death and destruction.

Obama meets Gulf states

On May 13th and 14th, 2015, President Obama hosted a billionaire conglomerate known as the Gulf Cooperation Council, consisting of Middle East countries Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Oman, at which he said: ‘I am reaffirming our ironclad commitment to the security of our gulf partners.’

TO PLACATE their pique at his effort to get a non-proliferation agreement with Iran, Barack Obama met last Thursday at Camp David with Saudi royals and leaders of the other five feudal dictatorships of the Persian Gulf.

He reaffirmed the United States “ironclad” commitment to their security and promised even more military aid and cooperation. After the personal dust-up between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu settles, we can expect the Administration and Congress to add even more steel to our commitment to protect and subsidize Israel by adding more to its already vast store of sophisticated weapons.

Thus, we take another step deeper into the tragedy of US intervention in the Middle East that has become a noxious farce.

Consider just one of the head-spinning subplots: We are allied with our declared enemy, Iran, against the bloody Islamic State, which was spawned from the chaos created by our own earlier decisions to invade Iraq and to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, which has us fighting side-by-side with jihadist crazies financed by Saudi Arabia, whom we are supporting against the Houthis in Yemen, the bitter rivals of Al Qaeda — the perpetrators of 9/11!

Since 1980, we have invaded, occupied and/or bombed at least 14 different Muslim countries. After the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, the region is now a cauldron of death and destruction. Yet, we persist, with no end in sight. As a former Air Force General Charles F. Wald remarked told the Washington Post, “We’re not going to see an end to this in our lifetime.”

Democrats and Republicans snipe over tactics, but neither wants to discuss the question of whether we should be there in the first place. Even liberals counseling caution, like the New York Times editorial board, hasten to agrees that the US must play a “leading role” in solving the Middle East’s many problems. In other worlds, stay the course.

The ordinary citizen trying to make sense of all this might reasonably ask: why? The president’s answer is that the war is in our “national interest.” Congress says, Amen. The phrase causes politicians and pundits on talk shows to synchronize the nodding of their heads, signaling that the national interest should not have to be explained — and certainly not debated.

When pressed for more specifics, our governing class offers four rationales for this endless war:

1. Fighting terrorism
2. Containing Iran
3. Securing oil
4. Defending Israel.

But when the citizen in whose vital interest the war is supposedly being fought takes a close look, he/she will find that none of these arguments — or all of them together — justifies the terrible cost, or even makes much sense.

Terrorism

The claim is that we will prevent another 9/11 by killing terrorists and keeping them offshore. But by now it is obvious that our interventions are counter-productive, i.e., they have vastly enlarged the pool of American-hating fanatics, willing to kill themselves in order to hurt us.

Americans are appalled when shown ISIS’s public beheadings on TV. What they are not shown is the beheadings routinely performed by the Saudi Arabian government and our “moderate” allies. Nor are they told that militias allied to the US-backed government in Iraq have killed prisoners by boring holes in their skulls with electric drills.

This is the way bad people behave in that part of the world. ISIS is a symptom, not a cause, of Middle East fanaticism — a problem rooted in corruption, tyranny and ignorance, which the United States cannot solve. Meanwhile, Arab governments themselves have enough firepower to defeat ISIS if they can put aside their own differences to do it. If they can’t, it is not our job to save them from their own folly.

The rationale here is embarrassingly circular — we must remain in the Middle East to protect against terrorists who hate America because we are in the Middle East. George W Bush’s often echoed claim that “They hate us for our freedoms” is nonsense. They hate us because we are foreign invaders. The longer we stay, the most likely it is that we will see another 9/11. And as the Boston Marathon bombing demonstrates, the people who carry out the next attack are more likely to live here, than there.

Iran

Iran is not a threat to US security and will not be as far as one can see into the future. Its hostility to the US is a product of over 50 years of our active interference in its politics, beginning in 1953 when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected prime minister and replaced him with a king.

Barack Obama is right that stopping the spread of nuclear weapons should be one of our highest international priorities. But taking sides in the Middle East’s political and religious civil wars has undercut our credibility, making it look like we are more interested in checking Iran’s influence than nuclear proliferation. Why, the inquiring American citizen might ask, is it OK for Israel and Pakistan to refuse to sign international treaties and allow inspection of their nuclear facilities, but not Iran?

In any event, the leverage that brought Iran to the negotiating table was not the US military’s presence or saber rattling in Washington. It was the economic sanctions.

Oil

Oil is an international commodity. When it comes out of the ground it is sold on world markets. Producing countries need consumers. US consumers buy oil at world prices, and it is available to them as it is to everyone else who can pay for it. They get no special discount for having military bases in the area.

The economic motivation for the invasion of Iraq was not to assure that we Americans would have gas for our cars and oil for our furnaces, but to assure that American-based oil companies would be the ones to bring it here.

Today, we get less than 10 percent of our oil from the Persian Gulf. The US is now projected to pass both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest oil producer in the next two years. By 2020 North America, and likely the US alone, will be self-sufficient in oil and gas.

The claim that Americans need to be in the Middle East for the oil has gone from dubious to implausible.

Israel

The United States does not need Israel to protect its security. Nor does Israel need the US

Israel has by far the most powerful sophisticated military in the entire region. Its arsenal includes nuclear and chemical weapons that, because Israel has refused to ratify international nonproliferation treaties banning, it can continue to develop with no outside interference. The surrounding Arab states are dysfunctional, disorganized and caught in the brutal quasi-religious war between Sunnis led by Saudi Arabia and Shiites led by Iran that is likely to drag on for decades. Hezbollah, which arose in Lebanon as a result of Israel’s 1982 invasion, can harass, but is certainly no threat to Israel’s existence.

Even if Iran eventually builds a bomb, Israel would still have the capacity to blow that country back to the Stone Age, and there is no evidence that Iran’s political establishment is suicidal.

The security problem for Israel comes from within the territory it controls: the status of the conquered, embittered Palestinians, who in 1948 and 1967 were driven out of their homes and herded into the ghettos of the West Bank and Gaza in order make room for the Jewish state.

The Palestinians are militarily powerless. They can throw stones and occasionally talk some lost soul into becoming a suicide bomber. From Gaza they can lob wobbly mortars over the Israel border. But always at the cost of harsh retaliation. Two thousand Gazans were killed in the Israeli punitive attacks of August 2014. It will take them ten years to rebuild their homes and infrastructure.

Yet the Palestinians will not give up their own dream of an independent homeland — at least on the territory occupied by the Israel army since 1967. So for almost a half century, our governments have pushed both sides to negotiate a permanent solution, pouring billions in aid to Israel, and lesser, but substantial amounts to placate the Palestinians and to bribe Egypt and Jordan into recognizing Israel. We have paid a huge political price; our role as collaborator in the Palestinian oppression is a major source of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

The US effort has failed. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis — both driven by anger, mutual distrust and historical grievances — have behaved well. But, Israel is the one in control of the West Bank. So any credible solution requires that it end the apartheid system they have imposed, either by giving Israeli citizenship to the Palestinians (One-State) or by permitting the establishment of an independent Palestine (Two-States).

The Israelis will never accept a one state solution with the Palestinians. Among other reasons is a widely shared fear of the faster Palestinian birthrate. The re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu in March after he promised Israeli voters he would never accept two states, has buried that idea as well. The real Israel solution is already in motion on the ground — pushing Jewish settlements further and further into the Palestinians’ territory until there is no space left for a Palestinian state.

There are now about 600,000 people in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and their number is growing. No Israeli government in the foreseeable future will be capable of evicting a substantial share of them in order to give the Palestinians room to form an independent country. The only pressure on Israel is the fear that it might become an international pariah state — as South Africa did before it ended its apartheid. But so long as Israel is under the political protection of the US, it can, and will, ignore world opinion.

Our choice therefore is either to remain as enabler of Israel’s “settler” solution, or, as part of a general withdrawal from the region, to let the Israelis and Palestinians deal with the consequences of their own behavior. Indeed, US disengagement might be the political jolt needed to force a change.

Thus, the real answer to the question of why our country is stuck in the Middle East will not be found in the phrase, “national interest.” Rather it will be found among a much narrower group of special interests — military contractors, oil sheikdoms, the Israel lobby, and a media that hypnotizes the electorate into equating patriotism and war.

These interests are formidable. Their fallback argument is that we are in too far even to contemplate pulling out. Much too complicated. And America’s “credibility” is at stake.

Maybe. But our credibility as a democracy is also at stake. To maintain it, responsible citizens should at least demand clarity about why we are slogging deeper and deeper into this quagmire, putting lives at risk, wasting enormous resources and diverting the attention of the US government from the deterioration of our national economy — the fundamental source of national security.

America’s bi-partisan governing class has no intention of opening up their Middle East misadventure to such scrutiny. So it’s up to the citizenry.

The 2016 president election campaign will force candidates into forums, town meetings and question-and-answer sessions. It may be the last chance for citizens to pierce the veils of glib rhetoric that hide the reasons our rulers have pushed us into a part of the world where we have no real business and where our presence has only made things worse.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Stop the War Coalition

Source: Common Dreams

Lobby your MP now »

Suleimani Accuses US-Led Coalition of Supporting ISIL

Local Editor

Suleimani

Commander of the Iranian Al-Quds Brigades, Major General Qassem Suleimani accused that the “anti-ISIL” coalition supports ISIL terrorist group.

Suleimani said that the states which claim that they are fighting ISIL enable the terrorist group to export the oil it confiscates in the Syrian Deir Ezour and the Iraqi Kirkuk via their territories.

Source: Agencies

27-05-2015 – 14:46 Last updated 27-05-2015 – 15:14

Related Video


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!

The Debate – Saudi War on Yemen (3.5.2015)

The Saudi onslaught on Yemen has gone on more than a month now and has caused the death of almost 3000 Yemeni men, women and children. And now Riyadh is using cluster bombs on the civilian population of Yemen. Scenes reminiscent of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza are being played out but it is Saudi warplanes bombing the civilian Yemeni population and using the same cluster bombs that Tel Aviv uses against Palestinians and also using a blockade keeping aid and food from getting in to Yemen. Something else familiar during this onslaught and that is the continual silence opposite direction of the so called international community.

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!

DAMASCUS: ALQAEDA ZIONIST TERRORISTS DIE IN DROVES; ALEPPO’S DAY IN THE SUN, AT LAST

ALEPPO:  While most people’s eyes have been fixed on events in Idlib Governorate, there has been expansive action all over Aleppo with the Syrian Army squelching Erodoghan’s efforts to seize this singularly important northern capital.

Kafr Sagheer and Duwwayr Al-Zaytoon:  On the Turk border lies this major supply route to the terrorists.  It has now been closed by the SAA.  In the area of St. Simeon’s Mountain, the SAAF participated in destroying several vehicles and fortifications.  Expect an SAA assault to secure this border route.

Al-Mansoora Village west of the city:  Nusra/Alqaeda saw one truck and a pickup with 23mm cannon destroyed.  There were 5 rat carcasses.  All were foreigners.

Baab Al-Hawaa:  The crossing is now in the Syrian Army’s cross hairs.  SAA is only 2kms now from establishing its control over this very important and troublesome crossing with Turkey.

Tal Rif’aat:  A unique operation netted 12 Al-Jabhat Al-Islamiyya terrorist vultures, and some from Harakat Nooreddeen Zanki with a smattering of Jaysh Al-Muhaahideen.  The only Syrians out of the 12 were these:

‘Umar Nabeel Julaylaati

Muhammad Faheem Al-Qaseer

Abu Al-Dhuhoor Village in the northeast rural area:  The SAA attacked Nusra/Alqaeda and killed 9 rodents, destroyed a pickup with 23mm cannon and seized several mortars, boxes of ammunition and light weapons.

Thermal Station:  A truck loaded with supplies for rats was destroyed.  Weapons which survived the explosions were seized for use by our militias.

Umm Khaan Village:  4 rats killed and 6 taken prisoner.  All weapons and ammunition were confiscated and delivered to the PDC.  The only Syrian in the group was this:

Sulaymaan Mahmoud Al-Hassan Qarqoot

Al-Nayrab Airbase to the west:  The SAA has repeatedly repelled attacks on this base. Last night the Nusra group tried again with little success.  Early field assessments indicate several killed with many wounded.  No other details.

Khanaassir Road:  Another highly complex, but perfectly executed operation kept the road open and resulted in 17 dead rodents with many wounded being seen evacuated to field clinics.

Al-Jubool Village:  Nusra again loses 3 of its rats in a firefight.

Fighting reported intense here: Ramla Village, Bustaan Al-Qassr, Murabbaa Al-Kabeer, Murabbaa Salloom, Burj Seenaa, Khaan Al-‘Asal, Bani Zayd Quarter, Al-Saakhoor, Hanaanu, Karm Jabal, Salaahuddeen, Layramoon, Baab Al-Nayrab, Ataarib, Kafr Hamraa, Al-Shuqayf, Bishqaateen Village, Castillo, Bustaan Al-Baashaa, Qastal Mushut, Old City, Turaab Hulluk, Al-Hulwaaniyya, Al-Ma’aadi, Al-Saaliheen, Al-Marj, Aghyoor, Al-Sha’aar, Baab Al-Hadeed.

________________________________________________________

DAMASCUS:  Not much action in the Damascus area as rats appear more interested in killing each other than fighting the SAA.  

مصدر عسكري: هدفنا الرئيسي هو جسر الشغور ومعركتنا القادمة ستكون حاسمة

Khaan Al-Shaykh:  Southwest of the city.  SAA blunted an attack by Nusra.  No other details.

Bayt Taymaa:  At the border of Al-Shaykh Mountain.  SAA snipes at moving rats and kills a reported 2 with others wounded.


Read more 

Related Articles


Related Videos

الجيش العربي السوري يتهيأ لاستعادة مدينةِ جسر الشغور من الجماعات التكفيرية المسنودة تركياً

 

الجيش العربي السوري يتهيأ لاستعادة مدينةِ جسر الشغور من الجماعات التكفيرية المسنودة تركياً

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

 

ANSARULLAH FORCES CHANGE MILITARY STRATEGY IN SANA’A

Houthis 14

 TEHRAN (FNA)- The Ansarullah forces have changed their military array in Sana’a as the street battles are likely to spread to the Yemeni capital, local sources said on Monday.

Ansarullah forces have specified new locations in the Yemeni capital to deploy their armored vehicles and set up new military checkpoints, eyewitnesses said.

 They noted that Ansarullah has fortified its positions in Sana’a streets and alleys.

Mansour Hadi in a televised speech thanked Saudi Arabia and its Arab and western allies for their support, and hinted at the prospect that he and other government officials currently based in neighboring Saudi Arabia would soon return to Yemen.

 In response, a source close to the Ansarullah movement on Monday rejected media news reports about Hadi’s return as part of the psychological war launched by the Saudi-backed front.
“Such reports are produced by the media affiliated to Saudi Arabia to boost the morale of the former regime’s remaining loyalists,” the source told FNA on Monday.
In sarcastic remarks, the source who is close to the popular movement said the Yemeni people are waiting for Hadi’s return to the country to punish him as a traitor.
“Any one who accompanies the Saudis in their crimes, the Yemeni people see him as a traitor who will be tried for betraying his/her homeland and nation,” the source added.

Meantime, the Saudi-led airstrikes against Yemen entered its 33rd day.

 Saudi Arabia launched its bombing campaign against Yemen on March 26 in an attempt to restore power to fugitive President Mansour Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh.
 The Monarchy’s attacks have so far claimed the lives of at least 3,010 civilians, mostly women and children.
Despite Riyadh’s announcement on Tuesday that it was halting the bombing campaign, the Saudi warplanes are still bombing residential areas across Yemen.

Related Videos

المؤتمر الصحفي للناطق باسم القوات المسلحة والامن اليمنية | الساحات

 صنعاء _ تظاهرة شعبية حاشدة ضد #العدوان_السعودي_على_اليمن | الساحات

 الدوار | محنة المنامة واليمن بين الرياض وواشنطن | نبأ الفضائية

 خارج الرقابة | #عاصفة_الحزم_توقفت_بعد_تحقيق_اهدافها ؟؟ | نبأ

 صباح الامة | د حسام مطر ~ عامر ملاعب | الثبات

 الباب المفتوح | الصبر الذي هزم عاصفة الحزم | زيد عيسى ~ يحيا حرب | نبأ

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!

Putin accuses U.S. of supporting separatists in Russia’s North Caucasus

colorrevolutions

Posted by MG editor on April 26, 2015

MOSCOW — In a new documentary, Russian President Vladimir Putin says intercepted calls showed that the U.S. helped separatists in Russia’s North Caucasus in the 2000s, underscoring his suspicions of the West.

The two-hour documentary, which began airing Sunday afternoon on the state-owned Rossiya-1 TV channel, is dedicated to Putin’s 15 years in office. It focused on Putin’s achievements as well as challenges to his rule — which the producers and Putin blame on Western interference.

Putin was elected Russian president on March 26, 2000, after spending three months as acting president, and was sworn in on May 7, 2000.

The documentary showed Putin interviewed at the Kremlin in the dimly-lit St. Alexander’s Hall. In excerpts released shortly before the film’s broadcast, Putin said Russian intelligence agencies had intercepted calls between the separatists and U.S. intelligence based in Azerbaijan during the early 2000s, proving that Washington was helping the insurgents.

He didn’t specify when the calls took place.

Following a disastrous war in the 1990s, Russia fought Islamic insurgents in Chechnya and neighbouring regions in the volatile North Caucasus.

“They were actually helping them, even with transportation,” Putin said.

Putin said he raised the issue with then-U.S. President George W. Bush, who promised Putin to “kick the ass” of the intelligence officers in question. But in the end, Putin said the Russian intelligence agency FSB received a letter from their “American counterparts” who asserted their right to “support all opposition forces in Russia,” including the Islamic separatists in the Caucasus.

Putin also expressed his fears that the West wishes Russia harm as he recalled how some world leaders told him they would not mind Russia’s possible disintegration.

“My counterparts, a lot of presidents and prime ministers told me later on that they had decided for themselves by then that Russia would cease to exist in its current form,” he said, referring to the time period around the second conflict in the Caucasus. “The only question was when it happens and what consequences would be.”

The latest poll by the independent Levada agency showed that the approval rating for Putin, whose third term in office ends in 2018, was a whopping 86 per cent in April.

Putin’s interview has revealed the depth of his disappointment in the West.

The West, in Putin’s words, is friendly to Russia only when it is on its knees.

“The so-calling ruling classes, political and economic elites like us only when we are wretched and poor and stand with a begging hand,” he said.

Whenever Russia begins to grow economically and politically, the West, according to Putin, begins to punish it. Putin said that he does not view Western sanctions against Russia as a reaction to last year’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, but rather “an attempt to hamper Russia’s development.

“This is a policy we have been familiar with for centuries.”

Putin defended the annexation of Crimea as a response to the will of the people, which restored “historic justice.”

Putin, who hasn’t announced whether he will run for presidency in 2018, insisted that he still hasn’t lost touch with ordinary Russians and that he “may very well imagine a life beyond this position.”

Source

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!

Netanyahu is a criminal, should he even be allowed entry into the USA?

Poll: Netanyahu Should be Investigated for Nuclear Weapons Tech Smuggling Before US Visit

A majority of Americans believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be investigated by the FBI for nuclear weapons technology smuggling before being allowed to enter the United States according to a new poll.

bibi-poll-thumb

In 2012 the FBI declassified and released files (PDF archive) of its investigation into how 800 nuclear weapons triggers were illegally smuggled from the U.S. to Israel. According to the FBI, the Israeli Ministry of Defense ordered nuclear triggers (krytrons), encrypted radios, ballistic missile propellants and other export-prohibited items through a network of front companies. Smuggling ring operations leader Richard Kelly Smyth alleged that Netanyahu worked at one of the fronts – Heli Trading owned by confessed spy and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan – and met with him frequently to execute smuggling operations.

The poll was commissioned by the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep). When informed of the incident, most Americans (54.9 percent) indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be investigated by the FBI before an upcoming U.S. visit.

Israel officially designated the smuggling operation “Project Pinto.” Smyth was captured, prosecuted and incarcerated in 2002 after years on the run as an international fugitive. The krytrons were believed to be destined for Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Only 25.8 percent of Americans polled believe Netanyahu should be allowed to freely visit the U.S. while 15.9 percent say said he should neither be investigated nor allowed to enter the U.S.

When questioned by Israeli and Russianmedia about the smuggling affair, the Israeli Foreign Ministry denied involvement.

Younger respondents (age 18-24 and 25-34) are generally more likely to want Netanyahu investigated (73.6 percent and 62.0 percent) than older Americans. Reponses vary little between income categories. However females (63.4 percent) were more likely than males (50.4 percent) to prefer Netanyahu be criminally investigated before being allowed to enter America.

Netanyahu has recently announced plans to break diplomatic protocol and address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Congress in March, 2015 without coordinating his state visit with the White House.

The IRmep poll, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent, was fielded January 26-28, 2015 by Google Consumer Surveys and received 1,507 responses. The poll question, response choices and statistically significant results may be viewed online and cross-tabulated.

Grant F. Smith is the author of America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government. He currently serves as director of research at the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington (IRmep), D.C. Read other articles by Grant, or visit Grant’s website.

Brainwashed zombies and hypocrites

 

 Using the assassination of anti-authoritarian cartoonists to reinforce
the authoritarianism and neo-fascism in Europe is just repulsive and
a lack of respect for the victims ( for ALL the victims)

The Saker 

So up to 3 million people took to the streets of Paris, including 40 heads of state, to denounce the murders of 17 victims of a streak of Takfiri terror attacks this past week.
Where were they?

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Afghanistan?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the Shia of Saudi Arabia? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against Shia of Bahrain?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Chechnia?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the Serbian people?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against Libyan people?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the Syrian people? Nowhere.


Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Iraq?  Nowhere.Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Kurdistan?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Lebanon? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Nigeria?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Pakistan?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of India? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Russia?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Somalia?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Kenya? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Yemen? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Algeria? Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Indonesia?  Nowhere.

Where were these 3 millions and 40 heads of state when abject Takfiri terror was unleashed against the people of Iran?  Nowhere.

Why not?

More questions

Did they not crucify babies in Algeria?  Did they not torture hostages on video in Chechnia?  Did they not spray weddings with bullets in Bosnia?  Did they not blow up bombs in Indonesia?  Did they not skin people alive in Afghanistan?  Did they not keep hostages with live wolves in holes in Chechnia?  Did they not torture to death and crucify people in Syria?

Or is it that some innocent victims are more equal then others?

Why is it that when all of Europe supported the Syrian Takfiris AND the Ukrainian Nazis 3 million of people did not take to the streets?

How many of those 3 million people and 40 heads of state really do not know that Takfirism has been lovingly and carefully nurtured, organized, financed, trained, federated, directed, supported, armed and protected by the AngloZionist Empire?

How many of those 3 million people and 40 heads of state really do not know that Takfirism is a golem which has two functions – to be unleashed against those who dare disobey the Empire and to terrify the people of the West into accepting a police state?

Will we ever learn?

We have already seen all that.  On 9/11 the American people were literally conditioned to react with fear and hysteria.  It worked perfectly and we all know how that ended: with many major wars and millions (Iraq!) of dead people.  Most Americans simply stopped thinking and substituted a panic reaction to careful analysis.  Today Europe is doing exactly the same thing.  The same causes will yield the same results.  Will we ever learn?

And who is the enemy anyway?

Oh sure, they are being oblique about it.  “We are not against Islam!!”, “Islam is a religion of peace!!” , “we have nothing against Muslims!!!”.

Yeah, right!

The truth is while “they” have nothing against “Islam” and “good Muslims” they ALSO “just happen” to think that “multiculturalism has failed” and that “Islam is incompatible with western societies”. Not only that, but since “bad Muslims” tend to hide amongst “good Muslims”, let’s just stay on the “safe side” and keep a very VERY “close eye” on all “them Muslims” just in case one of them happened to suddenly turn into a  crazed Jihadi suicide bomber.  Right?

Wrong!

Did you notice how ALL these Takfiri freaks “just happen” to have had PLENTY of contacts of all sorts with western security services?

It’s like a Ku Klux Klan meeting in the USA: for 10 hooded participants you have 2 morons and 8 Federal Agents working undercover.  Same exact deal for these Takfiris.  And then the two morons do something really really bad, and the 8 Federal Agents “just happen” to vanish in thin air (or commit suicide).  Does that have anything to do with Islam?  Of course not.  It has everything to do with the deep state and the covert manipulation of probably every single terrorist group on the planet.So what would make more sense: to fear Muslims or the western security services which carefully manipulate the Takfiri freaks?

The truth is what the very same western security agencies which control the Takfiri freaks want us all to hate Muslims.  Why?  Simply to create an atmosphere if social chaos, civil strive and even civil war.   So while we are busing hunting down those “evil Muslims” they can continue to exploit us all.

So what can we do?

Simple!  Our imperial overlords want us to do exactly three things:

  • Be terrified
  • Hate
  • Stop thinking

So all we need to do is to

  • Reject fear, endorse courage
  • Love
  • Think

It is really that simple.  If we fear, hate and stop thinking – they win. If we refuse to fear, if we love and if we think – we win.  Their entire Empire has been built on fear, hate and stupidity.  Let’ bring it down by courage, love and intelligence!

What we saw today in Paris was 3 millions and 40 heads of state demonstrating for two basic reasons: some were brainwashed by the media frenzy, others did so for political reasons.  3 million brainwashed zombies and hypocrites.  Let them.  But let us also proclaim loud and clear that we are NOT falling into their trap, that they will NOT pollute our souls with hatred and our brains with stupidity, that if there are millions of brainwashed and zombified people, there are billions who see through the lies and who reject this entire “mental landscape” of hate, fear and stupidity.

The Saker

Obnoxious Blair’s mouthing Israeli propaganda on the BBC as 5000 demonstrate against pro-Israeli coverage

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/what-the-bbc-did-as-5000-protested-over-its-pro-israeli-bias-interviewed-tony-blair

What the BBC did as 5000 protested over its pro-Israeli bias: interviewed Tony Blair

Stop the War Coalition 15 July 2014. Posted in News

As Israel resumed its bombardment of Gaza, over 5000 blockaded the BBC in protest at its Gaza reporting. And what was the BBC doing? Interviewing Tony Blair about Gaza.

Demonstration at the BBC

BBC Broadcasting House, London, blockaded by 5000 protesters for its pro-Israeli bias, 15 July 2014.

PROTESTERS ACCUSED the BBC of “anti-Palestinian bias” in its reporting of the Gaza conflict as they staged a demonstration outside the corporation’s central London headquarters.

Crowds chanted “BBC, shame on you” by New Broadcasting House near Oxford Circus this evening in a protest organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop and War and the CND.

It came as a proposed ceasefire deal brokered by Egypt collapsed.

Israeli forces resumed bombing just hours after the ceasefire came into effect this morning as the country’s eight-day conflict with Hamas saw the Palestinian death toll approach 200.

In a statement posted online ahead of the demonstration, organisers said: “As a publicly funded broadcaster the BBC is duty-bound to provide balanced reporting without bias.

“Once again Gaza is under massive aerial bombardment from Israeli warplanes and drones, and, once again, the BBC’s reporting of these assaults is entirely devoid of context or background.”

Source: Evening Standard

Tony Blair’s mouthing Israeli propaganda on the BBC as 5000 demonstrate against pro-Israeli coverage

Watch Tony Blair justifying mass murder of women and children as ‘Israel’s right to defend itself.’

 

As the 5000 protesters were outside Broadcasting House, demanding that the BBC stop acting as the mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda, what was the BBC doing?

It was interviewing Tony Blair, who was given three uncontested minutes to present Israel’s justification for mass murder and war crimes.

Over 200 people have been killed, most of them civilians, according to the United Nations, close to 1500 more have been injured, and 800 homes destroyed.

As Blair supported “Israel’s right to defend itself”, the Israeli military was dropping leaflets, telling 100,000 residents in the north of Gaza City to evacuate the area – announcing effectively it is going to carpet-bomb the area.

The BBC interviewer’s only response was to wonder lamely whether Israel’s bombardment of the most densely populated place on earth, killing dozens of women and children, might be “disproportionate”. Blair’s reply was to continue reading from his script written by the Israeli press office.

If you can bear it, watch the interview with Tony Blair here…

5000 demonstrate outside BBC Broadcasting House

Demonstration at the BBC

Protesters at BBC Broadcasting House, 15 July 2014.

Jermaine Jackson from Jackson 5 at the BBC demonstration

Jermaine Jackson at BBC demonstration

Jermaine Jackson from the Jackson 5 at BBC demonstration, 15 July 2014


NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
Stop the Bombing – Stop the Killing

Saturday 19 July • Assemble 12 Noon
Downing Street • London SW1A 2AA
More details…

We are all al-Qaeda now, if Obama says so?

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. He rots the soul of a nation – he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city – he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.” – Cicero, 42 BC

The political earth is shifting under our feet here in the US. There is talk now of something that most felt would be a down the road event… that America may be reaching a ‘tipping point’. I define that to mean a much larger number coming to understand that our present form of government has failed us, including the balance of powers doctrine which the Founding Fathers carefully built into our system.

They did not have a crystal ball, and could not see that outside forces could combine with disloyal, greedy and even treasonous rogue elements inside multiple branches of the our government to literally co-opt the country into being a tool for these outside forces.

The recent case in Syria of the highly suspicious chemical attack (I am being kind here) has generated the lowest support numbers for American military action that anyone here can remember. But if that was not bad enough the Obama administration made another mistake.

Their official position was, “We have the power to do it, so it does not matter what the people think.” That was a very dumb move on their part and I think they will look back on it so.

A two-sided coin seems to be in play here. On June 21st Obama sent a War Powers justification notice to Congress regarding the 700 troops and the missile batteries being sent to Jordan. On June 27th he effectively nullified the War Powers Act by saying he was not going to use it anymore as American constitutional foundations were being undermined by using the act for continual war without Congressional consent.

A week ago Obama said he would seek UN approval for a Syrian strike, and absent that only a sizable international coalition would make an attack diplomatically justifiable, but said getting that done would be ‘problematic’. Then days later he flips again saying that he has the authority to punish the use of WMD (but not when we, the Israelis or our allies use it). After the US has supported the killing of 100,000 Syrians, countless wounded and 8 million homeless in its disastrous regime-change ploy, we accuse Syria of a horrible crime.

And now, until he flips again, Obama is saying he wants Congress to have a debate and a vote, but still insists he has the power to launch an attack anyway. Are you getting a bit confused? This all looks like a superpower in panic mode. But why?

The White House public policy advisers must have rocks in their heads thinking that Americans can’t remember all the juiced up Intel reporting that took us into series of disastrous wars that significantly endangered our national security, and still is. One really has to look back at it all and ask if that was not really their objective.

Dear Obama policy wonks and CIA people, we remember what a hoax our secret agent ‘Curve Ball’ was, and we don’t believe he scammed you. We think you let yourself be scammed by him as part of your own scam.

We remember the yellow cake hustle, the sacrificing of Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld playing used car salesman on CNN while he showed made in Hollywood underground cities that Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. Yes… it was all bogus, and we remember.

People do not think that it was misinformation, but fraudulent evidence use to fool the public, to herd us like lemmings to the sea. Rumsfeld is despised in the military and Intelligence community now, along with Bush and Cheney and the rest of the NeoCon traitors.

We remember Wolfowitz testifying how two years of Iraqi oil production would cover the entire cost of the Iraq war. I could go on and on but we all know now it was just one long record of failure after failure, except for all the contractor money that was made by all those who thought a multi-decade War on Terror was just wonderful.

But this week we saw two significant segments of American society begin to awaken from their long slumber, the silent majority and American veterans and their families. Among the roughly 10% of Americans polled who supported an attack on Syria were all the pro-Israel American Jews, and the hard core Christian Zionists. What was missed is that most of the CZ’s seemed to be absent from the pro-military strike numbers. Even their leadership seemed to be keeping their heads down.

The rank and file military folks, they know they have been misused in the past and are a little more savvy about spotting another bogus national security threat being used as a cover for something else.

They sense the justification for a Syria attack as part of America’s post Soviet collapse continuation of commercial wars to secure and protect markets for multinational corporations, thus reducing the American people to plantation livestock and military cannon fodder.

They are seeing an insider government rogue element intermarriage with these supra-multinational corporations, including the banksters, as the most dangerous national threat that America has been facing. They are of course 100% right.

When Obama used Vietnam anti-war veteran John Kerry to trot out that pitiful excuse for evidence that Syria would pull a chemical weapons attack in areas where their ground forces had been succeeding, he shot himself in the foot. Absent was any mention of motivation, or the already known Intel of the rebels having chemical weapons and having used them.

Obama has now aligned himself with the depredations of the Bush II regime. His administration is now being viewed as a national security threat in itself. Obama, the Brits and the French have all been quiet on the major terrorism operations being run out of Saudi Arabia by Prince Bandar. They have murdered more people in Syria than were lost in New York City on 911. Syria has been getting the ‘911 treatment’ once a month, compliments of the protector of the free world.

Those who conspired to bring this about are guilty of crimes against humanity under international law. The charge is simply conspiracy to commit terrorism, and taking direct action to effect such. This is like… a really really big crime. The last time I looked, diplomatic immunity did not protect you from that.

The world knows now that the ‘Iran has nuclear weapons’ scare was all hype, created to build support for a hope for strike against Iran. The economic consequences of that misadventure would have tanked the world economy. What people, what nation would want to risk such a financial catastrophe when we have learned that the world financial system is a house of cards, constructed as such to benefit the few at the expense of the many?

The only entities who would be from such a disaster would be those who could profit from it. Why do some multinational corporations have intelligence capabilities that surpass many countries? Why does one of the major Internet companies have a paramilitary division, getting secret government contracts, including running assassination teams, unbeknownst to their shareholders? Do you think they are doing this for some public interest, or perhaps their own?

We must do more than just stop this contrived attack on Syria. We must break the machine the planned and pushed for it. We have to dig down to the bedrock and pull our home grown deeply embedded national security threats out by the roots. We must do this to defend ourselves. They have already killed us, on 911, and gotten away with it. That makes them extremely dangerous.

The phony war machine crowd will be cranking up their Congressional lobbyists this next week. The American public will need to put the fear into their Congressmen like they have never seen before. And we have to up the stakes for this fight. We have to start dialing back on where a penetration into the White House could then trigger a phony war based on phony Intel. And we have to clean out Israeli espionage in Congress as it is a constant knife to the throat of our country.

And we might want to put the Jim Dean trump card down on the table… no more internal investigations, period, as they are not worth spit. It makes no difference if they are military, Justice Dept, White House, FBI, CIA, or NSA. They can all be rigged via high level political obstruction of justice. Yes, we have knowledge of many FBI Israeli espionage investigations being stopped due to one call from the White House, which is nothing more than high treason.

We need a fourth branch of government whose sole job is to ride herd and root out corruption and treason in government, all branches of it. And such a fourth branch has to be answerable only to the people, where no political entity has veto power.

Only then we will be able to go down to the bedrock, and disinfect our house, and only then will we ever have any national security in any sense of the word. The only good thing that can come out of all this Iran/Syrian phone threat scam is that we use it as a launching pad to restart America all over again.

Our Intel files hold almost everything needed to prosecute the massive criminal empire that is protected by the highest political powers, because they are partners. They have all the bank transactions, all the emails, phone calls… and data mining can deliver them to the prosecutors offices on a conveyor belt.

We must make a pledge to each other that Syria is the last time we are going to let them pull this crap on us again. Large numbers of people in our government know who all the real bad guys are, but they aren’t telling. They are afraid.

We are going to have to figure out how to bring them over to our side or they will continue to make us all al-Qaeda funders and affiliates. God help us all… to save us from these barbarians in suits.

JD/HSN

Saudi rulers pour money into arming militants in region

Foreign-backed militants in Syria (file photo)

Foreign-backed militants in Syria (file photo)
Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:19AM GMT
Arab dictators have funneled at least $100 million to the mercenaries fighting in Syria to topple Assad. The latest expenditure was reportedly $50 million, spent by Saudi Arabia to buy weapons from Israel for supply to the militants. Most of those weapons are going to the Al Qaeda groups, such as Al Nusrah Front and Islamic State of Iraq and Shams.
Related Interviews:
If Saudi rulers had more brains, they might be formidably dangerous. Even with lackluster intelligence assets, they are already causing enough havoc and bloodshed across the Middle East and North Africa regions, pouring millions-of-dollars-worth of weaponry into Al Qaeda and other Takfiri networks that are destroying once proud civilizations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Libya through nihilistic sectarianism.

And if the Saudi paymasters of terrorism could have it all their way, they would salivate at the chance of extending this destruction to Iran – the Shia power that they fear as their nemesis.

Fortunately, the Saudi rulers’ agenda of covert terrorism – an agenda that serves its Western masters – is not well concealed. This is because “Saudi state intelligence” is something of an oxymoron and leaves a trail of self-incriminating clues wherever it goes.

This uncovering of the real authors of regional violence and their motives curtails the plotters and will lead eventually to their downfall through their own damnation.

Take the latest disclosure that the Saudis tried to bribe Russia into abandoning its long-time ally, Syria. Given their own venal form of feudal rule, the Saudis seem to think that everyone else can be bought at a price. Apparently, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan dangled a $15-billion arms deal in front of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin if the latter would jettison his country’s strategic alliance with Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

From past Saudi arms deals with British Premier Margaret Thatcher, involving multi-million-dollar bribery, kickbacks and other corruption, it is a fair bet that Prince Bandar also gave a nod and a wink for personal funds to be arranged for President Putin. To his credit though, Putin reportedly rebuffed any such treachery with the Saudis.

But what is significant here is that the disclosure of this sleazy business – thanks to Saudi unintelligence – represents a fatal gaffe for the whole Western-coordinated conspiracy against Syria.

For the past two years, the US, Britain and France have sedulously contrived a narrative that they are supporting “a pro-democracy uprising” in Syria. In this “noble endeavor”, the purportedly law-abiding and human-rights-upholding Western states are ostensibly supporting “freedom-loving rebels” out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.

In one fell-swoop, however, the Saudi gaffe-machine has blown a giant hole in the Western narrative over Syria. This is not the first time that the Saudi loose cannon has swung around on its Western patrons. A few months back, a Saudi “thinker” close to the House of Saud let it slip to the media that a top concern motivating Riyadh’s interference in Syria was to neutralize the regional influence of Iran.

In the meeting between Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin, the Saudi spy chief went on to say that “whatever regime comes after” Assad will be “completely” in Saudi hands.

So, there you have it. It’s not about supporting democracy in Syria. It’s about installing a regime in Damascus that will be under the boot of Riyadh, which in turn, means that any such regime will be under the geopolitical control of Washington and its allies, and thus aligned in the imperialist axis of antagonism against Tehran.

Of course, astute observers are already aware of the Western criminal conspiracy against Syria, and we should know this anyway from the preposterous notion that feudal-style Persian Gulf dictators are claiming to champion the cause of democracy in Syria.

Nevertheless, it is valuable when this conspiracy is exposed and admitted to by the co-conspirators themselves. Western political leaders, diplomats and media tend to be more savvy in the art of sophistry and deception. We can analyze and identify their criminal agenda, but it is rare to uncover an admission. But the reliably hapless Saudi rulers have done just that in their bribery attempt with Russia’s Putin.

Not only that, but in the same encounter Prince Bandar revealed much more about the criminal collusion against Syria. Another sweetener offered to Putin by the Saudis was that “Saudi Arabia would not sign any contracts damaging Russian interests by allowing [Persian] Gulf countries to transport gas across Syria to Europe”.

Prince Bandar, in his zeal to grease Putin’s hand, inadvertently tells the world of a major strategic reason why the Persian Gulf monarchs are so keenly sponsoring criminal regime change in Syria. Apart from isolating Iran, there is evidently an important oil and gas incentive. It’s worth reading Bandar’s words again: “Saudi Arabia would not sign any contracts damaging Russian interests by allowing [Persian] Gulf countries to transport its gas across Syria to Europe”.

It has been speculated before that the Persian Gulf oil and gas sheikhdoms want to obviate the narrow Strait of Hormuz on the eastern side of the Gulf through which most of their hydrocarbons are transported – some 17 million barrels of crude every day or nearly 20 per cent of the world’s daily total. Safe passage through the Strait is the gift of Iran, which controls most of the territorial waters. The Persian Gulf Arab dictators and their Western patrons know that if Iran is antagonized too far, then this maritime lifeline can be cut off and with that the petrodollar capitalist world economy will be sunk.

Because of this strategic vulnerability, it seems that the Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis want an alternative oil and gas supply route out of the Persian Gulf, to the North West. Syria’s land offers a prime route for this Arab oil and gas to the Mediterranean and thence to the vast market of Europe. This would get the House of Saud and its cronies off the hook with regard to dependency on Iranian goodwill;
and, further, the newfound geopolitical freedom would allow these adversaries to adopt an even more bellicose line towards Tehran – something that Washington and its allies would gladly approve of.

Prince Bandar’s admission in his meeting with Putin, held at the end of July, attests to this plan of the Persian Gulf sheikdoms breaking out of the Straits of Hormuz straitjacket via the Levantine territory of Syria. For the Arab monarchs to achieve that, they have to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad – a close ally of both Russia and Iran. That goal, by Bandar’s own admission, is one more explanation for why the Arab dictators have funneled at least $100 million to the mercenaries fighting in Syria to topple Assad. The latest expenditure was reportedly $50 million, spent by Saudi Arabia to buy weapons from Israel for supply to the militants. Most of those weapons are going to the Al Qaeda groups, such as Al Nusrah Front and Islamic State of Iraq and Shams.

Moreover, when Putin repudiated the Saudi bribery, it is reported that Prince Bandar then told Russian officials “the only option left in Syria is a military one – and that they should forget about the Geneva-2 international peace conference because the opposition would not attend”.

In other words, the Saudis are self-incriminating by openly declaring more state terrorism on behalf of the Western regime change plot against President Assad.

In this way, the Western propaganda façade over Syria is exploded more than ever by Saudi “intelligence”. The agenda is driven solely by geopolitics and oil and gas resources, involving state-sponsored terrorism to achieve these ends. In a word, it is criminal, and the criminals have just openly confessed.

In the war of information and truth over the conflict in Syria and the region, the Western co-conspirators just shot themselves in the foot. Clearly, having more money than brains can have a major downside.

FC/NN

%d bloggers like this: