Get Adobe Flash player
You are here:FEATURED STORIES > Globalists World Wars coming to the fore-front

Setting the Stage for World War 3

Being Labeled an Extremist for Telling The Truth - Monday, June 20, 2011
The Alex Jones Channel | Alex talks about World War 3, now in implementation stage.

June 20, 2011

On this Sunday Edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks about World War 3, now in implementation stage as Obama ignores the Constitution and Congress in Libya and the U.S. steams warships toward the coast of Syria on the Mediterranean. See Alex’s video, Obama Launching World War III.

Alex also covers Google-owned You Tube’s removal of Eric Schmidt at the 2011 Bilderberg Group conference. You Tube removed the “honors” associated with the Alex Jones Channel and prevented the clip from going viral. Alex covers the latest news and takes your calls.







 read more ...

NATO’s Terror Over Tripoli - Monday, June 20, 2011
Tony Cartalucci | NATO declared mid-May that it would be “increasing the range of targets” it could hit, including “government infrastructure.”

Infowars.com
June 20, 2011

The NATO excursion into Libya started with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi’s ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, then talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion. NATO declared mid-May that it would be “increasing the range of targets” it could hit, including “government infrastructure.” With a residential area hit and NATO playing dumb over its role in murdering the very civilians it is supposedly protecting, it appears they made good on their promise.

Tripoli
One must wonder if “R2P” holds true, who will round up NATO and send them to the Hague? ICC’s failure to act further undermines its already nonexistent legitimacy.
….

The key to Qaddafi’s long reign, his survival and resistance in the face of NATO’s relentless attacks is the support he garners from his own people. While the mainstream media preys on the ignorance of its audience, those who took the time to examine the demographics of Libya would realize the current fighting is split along traditional tribal lines where animosity has existed, and in fact been funded and fostered by the West for at least three decades. With NATO incapable of handing their inept terrorist stooges on the ground the country with airstrikes alone, it appears they are attempting the same terroristic “shock and awe” tactics used against Iraq to break the will of the population with overwhelming violence.

Reports of civilian casualties owed to NATO strikes have been filtering out for weeks. Commonsense dictates the impossibility of dropping high explosive ordnance in the middle of a densely populated city without incurring considerable “collateral damage.” However the corporate-owned media dismissed Libyan accounts of such murder and mayhem with a complete whitewash of NATO’s terror over Tripoli. A ridiculous AP story titled, “Libyan regime accused of exaggerating casualties,” claims that doctors dropped secret notes for reporters to read claiming many of the deaths the government was reporting were from road accidents rather than NATO’s admitted bombardment of the nation’s populous capital city.

Just before NATO itself had to admit it did indeed drop ordnance in a residential area, media outlets, who have built the entire case against Libya with unverified reports from less than objective sources (the rebels), attempted to downplay the “alleged” claims of the Libyan government. Slate made sure in a recent article to remind readers that, “the Libyan government’s claims of civilian casualties have been exaggerated in the past.” We must assume a doctor dropped Slate a secret note as well, for Slate makes no attempt to verify their assertion.

It has been previously noted how much is riding on the war against Libya. The very credibility of the the emerging international order and the primacy of international law is at stake, so says the corporate-funded Brookings Institution in their February report, “Libya’s Test of the New International Order.”Any and all methods to depose Qaddafi and hand the nation over to their globalist stooges will be attempted with the prospect of full-scale invasion a very real possibility. Failure for the global-elite would put an end to their gambits world-wide, signaling to struggling sovereign nations that resistance is not futile.

In many ways, though, NATO’s Libyan excursion is already an absolute failure; a failure to garner wide support for the operation even amongst other NATO countries, a failure to sell the war to the public, and a failure to maintain a moral high ground they never possessed in the first place but in the lofty imaginations of their corporate-owned media networks. The clock is ticking and so the terror over Tripoli will only intensify. The global-elite and think tanks like the Brookings Institution are still selling the “R2P” or “responsibility to protect” doctrine as their reason for meddling in Libya. Not only is this confounding considering the violence they are supposedly attempting to mediate and stop was in fact started by them over the course of 30 years in the first place, it is also confounding when considering they themselves are now butchering Libya’s civilian population.

 read more ...

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham: Congress should ‘shut up’ about Libya - Monday, June 20, 2011
Raw Story | Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on “Meet the Press” Sunday that “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Gaddafi.”

Kase Wickman
Raw Story
June 20, 2011

Congress is embroiled in debate about whether President Barack Obama violated the War Powers Act by using military force in Libya without gaining approval from Congress first.

A bipartisan group of House members is suing Obama.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) said that Congress must vote and approve the intervention.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on “Meet the Press” Sunday that “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Gaddafi.”

Huh?

 read more ...

Bombing Of Civilians In Libya Deliberate? - Monday, June 20, 2011
NATO’s bombing of civilians in Libya looks as if it is deliberate.

AANGIRFAN
June 20, 2011

NATO’s bombing of civilians in Libya looks as if it is deliberate.

On 19 June 2011, a Libyan government spokesman condemned NATO air raids on a civilian neighborhood.

He said that NATO was “deliberately targeting civilians.”

The residential area had no military facilities or weapons installed nearby.

9 civilians were killed in the US-NATO raid.

A Xinhua reporter saw dozens of homes damaged or destroyed.

A BBC reporter saw bodies pulled from the wreckage.

NATO warplanes circled overhead for more than one hour after the raids, causing panic to local residents.

NATO has admitted that they caused civilian casualties.

Source: Libyan gov’t slams NATO raids on civilian neighborhood

Bombing Of Civilians In Libya Deliberate? Dresden
Dresden in Germany

In the UK, during World war II, Dr. Kurt Lewin was the director of the Strategic Bombing Survey.

This was a plan for the Royal Air Force to concentrate on bombing German civilians, not munition plants.

“The munition plants belonged to the international bankers who had no wish to see their assets destroyed.”

The idea behind saturation bombing of civilian worker housing was to break the morale of the civilians.

Lewin and his team of actuaries worked out that if 65% of German worker housing was destroyed by nightly RAF bombing, the morale of the civilian population would collapse.

“The actual document was prepared by the Prudential Assurance Company.”

The RAF, under the command of ‘Bomber Harris’, carried out Lewin’s plans, culminating in the terror firestorm bombing of Dresden, in which over 125,000, mainly old men, women and children, were killed.

Source: Tavistock Institute Of Human Relations

 

 read more ...

World War Three, The Globaloists New World coming forward

Clinton on Syria: Astounding Lies, Zero Legitimacy

Tony Catalucci | Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just attempted to rewrite the last 3 months of history.Out of either desperation or immeasurable hubris, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just attempted to rewrite the last 3 months of history, contradicting her own department’s statements made during the onset of the Syrian unrest.

Tony Catalucci
Infowars
June 18, 2011

Bangkok, Thailand June 18, 2011 – Out of either desperation or immeasurable hubris, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just attempted to rewrite the last 3 months of history, contradicting her own department’s statements made during the onset of the Syrian unrest.

Obama

Within the pages of the London-based, Saudi-funded Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hillary Clinton joined Barack Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy, and David Cameron in the bizarre trend of Western leaders writing newspaper editorials in an attempt to reinforce the ever changing, ever contradicting official narrative. Clinton’s article titled, “There is no going back in Syria,” oafishly parrots month old corporate-funded think-tank talking points with the addition of hamfisted reversals on the US State Department’s own narratives.

Lie #1: Syrian protests are not the work of foreign instigators.

One paragraph in particular is so astoundingly dishonest and contradictory it almost defies explanation. Clinton states, “If President Assad believes that the protests are the work of foreign instigators — as his government has claimed — he is wrong. It is true that some Syrian soldiers have been killed, and we regret the loss of those lives too. But the vast majority of casualties have been unarmed civilians.”

However, it was Hilary Clinton’s own State Department according to an April 2011 AFP report, that said the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there. They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” Quite obviously the “ripple effect” the State Department is referring to is the destabilization occurring throughout the region, including across Syria.

Additionally, after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US had been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 and continued until today, US State Department spokesman Mark Toner defended the funding which started under the Bush regime when Syria was added to the “Axis of Evil.” Toner stated, “we’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”

Unfortunately for Toner, funding foreign opposition groups and inciting political upheaval is far from a benign act, and more akin to an act of war. It would be unimaginable for another nation to engineer a certain variety of government within the United States because it felt it was more “proper.” Such meddling is a direct violation of a nation’s sovereignty and those within the target nation assisting such meddling are universally known as “traitors.”

Lie #2: The protesters are peaceful.
Extraordinarily, Clinton manages to both confirm and deny the violent nature of the protests by stating that while Syrian troops have died, the vast majority of the deaths (according to unverified reports by the protesters themselves) were “unarmed civilians.”


With the number of dead security forces now in the hundreds, the corporate-owned media is no longer able to credibly call Syria’s protesters “unarmed civilians.”
….

Clinton’s own admission that Syrian soldiers have died indicates that indeed there are armed groups amongst the protesters. Just as in Bangkok in 2010, during another foreign-funded color revolution, militant gunmen are attempting to escalate the violence intentionally, targeting both protesters and security forces. This is in hopes of reaching a critical mass of violence sufficient for justifying a wider use of overt violence or possibly foreign intervention.

The inability of the US State Department to verify any of the claims coming out of the mostly London-based Syrian opposition is coupled with the impossibility of knowing which Kalashnikov on which side killed who. It is more likely that the Syrian government, knowing full well the consequences of wanton violence, is being as careful as possible when engaging the armed elements even Secretary Clinton concedes are operating amongst the protesters. The Syrian government has been reporting mysterious gunmen since as early as late April, opening fire on protesters and security forces from rooftops. While the corporate-owned media attempted to play this off as Syrian propaganda, the rising death toll of government troops certainly cannot be attributed to “unarmed civilians.” Articles like Christian Science Monitor’s “Has Syria’s peaceful uprising turned into an insurrection?” are attempting to now create the illusion that some sort of justified transition is occurring despite the fact that arsonists and gunmen had been ravaging Syria since the unrest started several months ago.

Similar claims were made in Libya; both that seasoned rebels, driving tanks and manning warplanes with 30 years of foreign-backing for their militant activities were “peaceful protesters,” and that Qaddafi was purposefully targeting civilians. The latter claims were made despite even the corporate-funded think-tanks engineering the conflict stating that Qaddafi was most likely making a point of avoiding civilian casualties.

Further compromising the fantastical paradigm Secretary Clinton is attempting to foist upon the public is the corporate-funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report which amounts to a brazen conspiracy to aid and abet terrorist organizations to violently overthrow sovereign nations in tandem with the very same foreign-funded popular revolutions we see now across the Arab world, all with “forms” of US military support on standby if necessary.

The report explicitly states in regards to neighboring Iran, “Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.”


Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report: a signed confession that indeed the US does conspire to fund, arm, and abet terrorists, sedition, popular revolutions, and even provoke unnecessary wars all for their “regional interests.”
….

“Consequently,” the report continues, “if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.” After identical methods have been employed in Libya, Syria is currently suffering under a similarly prescribed, admittedly foreign-funded, plot backed by armed militants and possibly “some form of military support” from the United States, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. Certainly after several attempts to pass UN Security Council resolutions against Syria, the prospect of wider intervention is also “on the table.”

The Brookings Institution report also boastfully celebrates past exploits and regional manipulations including the arming and backing of the Kurds against Iraq. The report nostalgically recalls, ” When the Shah of Iran, the United States, and Israel began to back Iraqi Kurds against Baghdad, it took only a few years for the Ba’thist regime to move against it—and only a matter of months of unsuccessful military campaigning to convince Saddam Husayn to cut a deal with the Shah to persuade him to cut his ties with the Kurds.” With this admission in hand, we have a historical precedent backing the assertions of the Syrian government that indeed foreign meddlers are at work, both behind the protesters and the armed militants battling the government.

Throughout Hillary Clinton’s lengthy diatribe, she failed to even once condemn the violence she hinted at amongst the opposition. Just as in Libya, these shadowy militants will be denied until the very first NATO bombs strike Syrian soil, where they will then transform into citizen-soldiers nobly fighting for their freedom. In reality they are nothing more than the same ethnic minority groups manipulated and backed for decades against the global elite’s long list of targets throughout the region.

Lie #3: There is no going back in Syria.

The global-elite themselves admit they have neither the logistical means nor the political capital to conduct even a single war in the region, let alone campaigns against multiple nations at once. That is, barring a false-flag attack magnitudes larger than 9/11 and the mobilization of America for total war. Resistance in both Libya and Syria, as well as assistance from Iran, and any other nation disinterested in subjugation under the reincarnated Anglo-American empire could bleed these global elitists to death.

Capitulation under the perception of superiority would be unfortunate indeed. Clinton’s need to pen an op-ed in a London-based Arab newspaper claiming “there is no going back in Syria” only reaffirms the fact that it is far from a foregone conclusion. Such a desperate act of propagandizing is indicative of weakness, not strength. When foisting massive fraud upon the planet, it will always be more people over time realizing it is a hoax than continuing to fall for it. Time is working against the global-elite.

Conclusion

Once again, on the pages of the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report we see months, even years in advance the ploys and gambits that are to play out. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” was the virtual playbook from which objectives and strategies regarding Libya and Syria were and are being drawn from. Understanding that these corporations and the think-tanks they fund are the true architects of Western foreign policy is the first step in ending these heinous crimes being committed in our name and ultimately at our expense.

Hillary Clinton’s brazen lies, unmitigated deception, and her crass insolence is irrefutable evidence that she and the government she works within have abdicated all of their legitimacy. Their open contempt for America’s Constitution while they promote “universal rights” and the will of the “international community” means that we no longer bound to obey them as they are no longer bound to the laws that truly govern our land. The next step of course is undermining these corporations and the puppet institutions that serve them through full-spectrum boycotts and replacing them entirely on a local level.

  

government criminals war crimes

War with Syria, Iran and Lebanon in the Works? - Saturday, June 18, 2011

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Voltairenet.org
June 17, 2011

Washington and its allies, Israel and the Al-Sauds, are taking advantage of the upheavals in the Arab World. They are now working to dismantle the Resistance Bloc and weaken any drive for democracy in the Arab World. The geo-political chessboard is now being prepared for a broader confrontation that will target Tehran and include Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians.

Tying Hezbollah’s Hands through External and Internal Pressure

In Lebanon, there is a deadlock in regards to the formation of a Lebanese government. Michel Sleiman, who holds the presidency in Lebanon, and the new Lebanese prime minister have been delaying the formation of the cabinet in a political row with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement. It may be possible that the formation of a new Lebanese cabinet is being delayed deliberately to keep Lebanon neutralized on the foreign policy front.

The U.N. Security Council and several U.N. bodies are all being used by the U.S. and the E.U. to put pressure on Lebanon. U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon himself is a U.S. puppet who has done everything to legitimize U.S. and NATO aggression to the point where Moscow openly accused him of treachery for secret dealings with NATO in 2008. It is in this context that the U.N. is being used as a forum for insidious attempts to internationalize the domestic issue of the weapons of the Lebanese Resistance and to disarm it. Despite the fact that U.N. Resolution 1559 is no longer relevant, the Special Representative for the Implementation of Resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, still remains active and issues reports against Hezbollah.

The envoys of the U.N. to Lebanon resemble colonial figures making uninvited edicts in Beirut and working as agents of Washington, Brussels, and Tel Aviv. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which has an entire division in the U.S. State Department dedicated to it, is also a loaded political weapon that Washington is itching to use against Lebanon and Syria. A international tribunal was formed for the slaying of the late Rafik Al-Hariri.

Hariri at the time of his murder had no official state position, but an international tribunal has been created for his case alone. On the other hand the international community has taken no interest in forming any type of tribunals to investigate the murder and assassinations of the thousands of other people killed in Lebanon. What does this say about the STL and the justice being sought?

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL]) has also been complicit in Israeli violations against Lebanon. Even the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been infiltrated with officials that are supportive of Israeli crimes against Palestinians and Lebanon. This was demonstrated by Christopher Gunness, the spokesperson of UNRAW, in a May 15, 2011 interview with the Israeli military. In the same timeframe as when Tel Aviv fired on unarmed civilian protesters during Nakba Day 2011, Gunness declared UNRWA works in the interest of Israel and is against the mere position of rockets by Palestinians, which UNRWA considers a terrorist act. Even the Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip was whitewashed by the UNRWA spokesperson.

The absence of a new cabinet in Lebanon has also allowed Saad Hariri and the March 14 Alliance to continue having an ominous hand in managing Lebanon’s affairs. It also buys time for the STL, which can move forward without being challenged by a Lebanese government in Beirut that would be hostile towards it. A new government in Beirut is certain to remove any Lebanese recognition of the STL and effectively work to de-legitimize it.

Moreover, the Internal Security Forces (ISF) of Lebanon is also being used against Hezbollah and the political opponents of Saad Hariri. The ISF may even have a hand in working against Damascus and helping promote violence in Syria. The ISF take its orders from the Hariri family instead of the Lebanese government and is controlled by them.

Because of the free hand given to Hariri and his cronies from the lack of a functioning cabinet in Beirut, Ziad Baroud, the acting interior minister of Lebanon, has refused to sign any more papers from his ministry. Baroud has taken this position, because he believes that the ISF is acting covertly and without his approval or supervision. In this regard, the ISF has refused to follow the orders of Ziad Baroud to allow Charbel Al-Nahhas, the acting telecommunications minister of Lebanon, to enter ISF headquarters for a routine check. The ISF was clearly trying to hide its operations and was acting to prevent Al-Nahhas and his team from going to certain floors at ISF headquarters.

It is also no secret that Lebanon is a nest of spies and intelligent agents from the U.S., the E.U., Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia that are working to tackle Hezbollah and its coalition. In 2006, during the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon the embassies of E.U. members were also collecting data against Hezbollah. The Al-Sauds have helped facilitate the links between Israel and the network of spies in Lebanon. This is demonstrated by the clear link between Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hussein, the Shiite cleric caught working for Israel, and the Al-Sauds.

In tune with all this, Hezbollah is constantly attacked as an Iranian agent. Recently, Hezbollah has been blamed alongside Iran for stirring protests in the Persian Gulf, specifically in Bahrain and the Shiite-dominated areas of Saudi Arabia. In this regard Lebanese citizens, regardless of their faith in many cases, have also been singled out by the Khaliji regimes and expelled from the Persian Gulf. This is part of a sectarian card to create regional divisions and hate. This has also been used internally in Lebanon by Saad Hariri to target Hezbollah and its allies. Hariri ironicially accused Iran of interfering in Bahrain when the Saudi military invaded the island-state to keep the Al-Khalifas in power.

The petro-sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf are now systematically preventing Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, and Pakistani citizens from entering their borders. Kuwait has justified this by saying that there could be trouble within Kuwait due to political instability in these countries. The Kuwaiti justifications are suspect. Kuwait and its fellow sheikhdoms are doing this because they expect trouble to ignite from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghani and Pakistani borders with China and India.

Destabilizing Syria

Damascus has been under pressure to capitulate to the edicts of Washington and the European Union. This has been part of a longstanding project. Regime change or voluntary subordination by the Syrian regime are the goals. This includes subordinating Syrian foreign policy and de-linking Syrian from its strategic alliance with Iran and its membership within the Resistance Bloc.

Syria is run by an authoritarian oligarchy that has used brute force in dealing with its citizens and there is no question about it. The riots in Syria are, however, multi-factored and simply not just about a quest for liberty. In this regard there is an attempt to use the riots in Syria as a tool by the U.S. and the E.U. to pressure and intimidate the leadership of Syria. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and the March 14 Alliance have all had roles in the Syrian riots.

The Al-Sauds have also helped drown out any authentic calls for democratic reform and marginalized the democratic elements in the Syrian opposition during the protests and riots. In this regard the Al-Sauds have supported both sectarian and violent elements that are intolerant of religious and ideological diversity. These elements are mostly Salafist extremists, like Fatah Al-Islam and the new extremist political movements being organized in Egypt. They have also been rallying against the Alawites, the Druze, and Syrian Christians.

The violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with a view of taking advantage of the internal tensions and the anger in Syria. Aside from the violent reaction of the Syrian Army, media lies have been used and bogus footage has been aired. Weapons, funds, and various forms of support have all been funnelled to elements of the Syrian opposition by the U.S., the E.U., the March 14 Alliance, Jordan, and the Khalijis. Funding has been provided to ominous and unpopular foreign-based opposition figures, while weapons caches were smuggled from Jordan and Lebanon into Syria.

The events in Syria are also tied to Iran, the longstanding strategic ally of Damascus. It is not by chance that Senator Lieberman was demanding publicly that the Obama Administration and NATO attack Syria and Iran like Libya. It is also not coincidental that Iran was included in the sanctions against Syria. The hands of the Syrian military and government have now been tied internally as a new and broader offensive is being prepared that will target both Syria and Iran.

Syria and the Levantine Gas Fields in the Eastern Mediterranean

Syria is the central piece of two important energy corridors. The first links Turkey and the Caspian to Israel and the Red Sea and the second links Iraq to the Mediterranean. The surrender of Syria would mean that Washington and its allies would control these energy routes. It would also mean that the large natural gas fields off the Lebanese and Syrian coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean would be out of reach for China and instead go to the E.U., Israel, and Washington.

The Eastern Mediterranean gas fields have been the subject of negotiations between the E.U., Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Aside from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline, the existence of the Levantine natural gas fields is also the reason why the Kremlin has created a military foothold in Syria for the Russian Federation. This has been done by upgrading Soviet-era naval facilities in Syria. Moreover, it has been Iran that has agreed to explore and help develop these natural gas fields off the Levantine coast for Beirut and Damascus.

Hamas-Fatah Rapprochement

There is a strong correlation between war in Southwest Asia and increased talk at the official level about Palestinian statehood. Hopes of Palestinian statehood have always been used twice to discharge pressure in the Arab World built from rising tensions from war preparations against Iraq. The first time was by George H. Bush Sr. and the second time by George W. Bush Jr., who was praised for being the first U.S. president to seriously talk about a Palestinian state.

Even as he flip-flops on his position, Obama now is talking about a Palestinian state too. Moreover, rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah has taken place as the count-down towards international recognition of Palestinian statehood begins. The Israelis have also released frozen funds to the Palestinians, which they refused to do before due to Hamas.

The rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas has also served to tie the hands of Hamas. Hamas will have to be careful not to effectively become a junior partner in governing the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. Hamas must now modify its behaviour to continue its partnership in a unity government with Fatah, which will undemocratically be imposed as the senior partner the Palestinian Authority. In a manner of speaking, Hamas is being domesticated indirectly by Israel and Washington.

Instability in Pakistan

With the announcement that Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. forces has come an entire package of events. There has been a calculated effort to present Osama bin Laden as a popular and venerated figure for Muslims. This is with a view of supporting the so-called “Clash of Civilizations.”

At the same time the U.S. government is starting a media campaign against Pakistan. Islamabad has been portrayed as harbouring Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network. In reality any Pakistani involvement with terrorists has been ordered and directed by Washington. There is a much more complicated story to all this, but what is happening in reality is that Pakistan as a nation is being targeted for dismantlement.

JPEG - 29.5 kb
China promised to deliver 50 fighter jet planes to Pakistan in light of souring U.S.-Pak relations.

The dismantlement and destabilization of Pakistan would serve three objectives. One objective is in the scenario of a war with Iran, Pakistan would not be under threat of a takeover by revolutionaries that would side with Iran and its allies. The second objective is to target Chinese interests in Pakistan, such as an energy route from Iran to China or the Chinese port in Gwadar. The other objective is to destabilize the area of Eurasia between Iran, Central Asia, India, and Western China. At the same time Washington also wants to neutralize the Pakistani nuclear program.

The U.S. has also announced that it intends to violate the national boundaries of any country and international law by sending its forces into any nation. Hillary Clinton has justified this by saying that U.S. forces will be assassinating terrorists. This is merely an opening door for creating pretexts for intervention in other countries, such as Iran or Syria.

A New Pressure Point in Tehran for Washington, Israel, and the E.U. to Capitalize?

The political system of Iran is complex and there are multiple poles of power that challenge and balance one another. In 2009, the world already saw internal fighting amongst the ruling establishment. The divisions played themselves out during the protests that resulted after the presidential elections when allegations of fraud were put forward.

The presidential administration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad started its term in 2005 being at odds with vast segments of the political establishment in Iran. Its relationship has always been tense with the other poles of power in Tehran. In 2011 it has been finding itself increasingly at odds with the Iranian Parliament, the Iranian Judiciary, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Within the framework of these political tensions, another Iranian internal political struggle is in the making. This time the centre of attention is Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. The views of Mashaei, who is known as a political conservative, have been at odds with other conservatives, specifically the clerical elements. In 2009, Mashaei gave a speech where he said that Iran was friends with all the people of the world, including the Israeli people, and that Tehran was just opposed to the regime in Tel Aviv. This was rebuked by Ayatollah Khamenei.

In July 2009, President Ahmadinejad tried to appoint Mashaei to the office of the primary (first) vice-president of Iran, but was opposed by the Iranian Parliament. Ahmadinejad would be forced to appoint Mohammed-Reza Rahimi to the office of primary vice-president. Instead Mashaei would be appointed the presidential chief-of-staff by President Ahmadinejad.

In April 2011, a scandal would erupt when it became public that Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi had ordered for Mashaei to be the subject of electronic surveillance. Ahmadinejad in outrage would fire the Intelligence Minister, but his decision was vetoed by Ayatollah Khamenei. Heydar Moslehi would remain.

It appears now that there is a concerted effort to weaken the Ahmadinejad Administration and to prevent it from helping Mashaei and others run for office. General Ali Jaffari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has come out to publicly state that there are corrupt elements in the presidential office which have deviated from the principles of the Iranian Revolution. Ali Saeedi, the liaison of Ayatollah Khamenei within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has also added his voice, saying that Ahmadinejad and his political camp will lose all support unless they remain committed to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Some form of political show down is looming in Tehran. There appears to be a widening political rift amongst Iranian conservative ideologues. The Iranian President and his political allies intent to field their own candidates in the March 2012 parliamentary elections, which will challenge the current assortment of so-called conservatives in the Iranian Parliament.

In addition to all this, the death of Haleh Sahabi, the daughter of the former Iranian parliamentarian Ezatollah Sahabi, at the funeral of her father has ignited opposition anger that is threatening to fuel and spark new protests in Iran. Iranian security forces were present at the funeral to prevent it from being turned into a political event against the ruling establishment. In their presence, Haleh Sahabi was confronted by an unknown man who grabbed the picture of her father that she was holding during the funeral. When she tried to grab the man, he elbowed her so violently in the face that she died from a heart attack.

This could all play into the hands of the enemies of Iran. There is a secret war against Iran being fought by Washington and its allies, which has included the kidnapping of Iranians, assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials, and terrorist attacks on Iranian border regions. The developing internal divisions in Tehran could be capitalized on by its enemies. Israel is already showing a deep interest in these new political tensions in Tehran.

It should be noted that Tel Aviv and Washington had prepared to launch a campaign to de-legitimize the Iranian presidential elections in 2009 and to use it to exploit any internal political divisions in Iran. This is documented by the Israeli media. Additionally, this is the reason that the U.S. Congress gave millions of dollars, at the request of U.S. Secretary Rice and President George W. Bush Jr., to establish a special interests office in the U.A.E. for dealing with regime change in Tehran.

Secret Israel Drills in Occupied Iraq: Iran in the Cross-Hairs Again?

Challenging Tehran, just like Russia, has always been a strategic objective of Washington and NATO. Tel Aviv has ended its period of brief silence about Tehran and has started to talk about attacking Iran again. What has added an extra dimension to this are the reports that the U.S. has allowed Israel to secretly use U.S. air bases in Al-Anbar, Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr has warned Tehran about the Israeli-U.S. operations in Iraq, which could amount to plans for some form of confrontation with Iran, Syria, and the entire Resistance Bloc from Gaza, Beirut, and Bint Jbeil to Damascus, Basra, Mosul, and Tehran.

All the ingredients for a conformation led by the U.S. against Iran exist. Iranophobia is being spread by the U.S., the E.U., Israel, and the Khaliji monarchies. Hamas has been entangled into the mechanisms of a unity government by the unelected Mahmoud Abbas, which would mean that Hamas would have to be acquiescent to Israeli and U.S. demands on the Palestinian Authority. Syria has its hands full with domestic instability. Lebanon lacks a functioning government and Hezbollah is increasingly being encircled.

At the same time the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which is the organization formed by the Khaliji petro-sheikhdoms that have been heavily armed by Washington and the E.U., are blaming Iran for their domestic problems. The strategic alliance that has been formed by Tel Aviv and the Al-Sauds, which was formed to originally combat Gamal Abdel Nasser, has also prepared for broader conflict across the map with Iran and its allies. Missile shields are in now in place and being prepared in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms. Massive shipments of heavy weaponry have also been sent to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC by Washington and the major E.U. powers.

A military structure, which is tied into NATO, has also been put into place to attack Iran, Syria, and their allies. Under various agreements NATO has established a foothold in the Persian Gulf and military links with the GCC. France also has a base in the United Arab Emirates. The GCC is also preparing to expand. Both the kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan have made requests to join, while Yemen is also being considered for membership. Along with GCC membership comes a joint defence structure.

Ankara: The Inside Man?

There is one other important player that must be talked about. This player is Turkey. Washington and the E.U. have pushed Turkey to be more active in the Arab World. This has blossomed through Ankara’s neo-Ottomanism policy. This is why Turkey has been posturing itself as a champion of Palestine and launched an Arabic-language channel like Iran and Russia.

Ankara, however, has been playing an ominous role. Turkey is a partner in the NATO war on Libya. The position of the Turkish government has become clear with its betrayal of Tripoli. Ankara has also been working with Qatar to corner the Syrian regime. The Turkish government has been pressuring Damascus to change its policies to please Washington and appears to possibly even have a role in the protests inside Syria with the Al-Sauds, the Hariri minority camp in Lebanon, and Qatar. Turkey is even hosting opposition meetings and providing them support.

Turkey is viewed in Washington and Brussels as the key to bringing the Iranians and the Arabs into line. The Turkish government has been parading itself as a member of the Resistance Bloc with the endorsement of Iran and Syria. U.S strategists project that it will be Turkey which domesticates Iran and Syria for Washington. Turkey also serves as a means of integrating the Arab and Iranian economies with the economy of the European Union. In this regard Ankara has been pushing for a free-trade zone in Southwest Asia and getting the Iranians and Syrians to open up their economies to it.

GIF - 54.8 kb
The architect of Turkey’s foreign policy shift, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (L) and his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi.

In reality, the Turkish government has not only been deepening its economic ties with Tehran and Damascus, but has also been working to eclipse Iranian influence. Ankara has tried to wedge itself between Iran and Syria and to challenge Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Turkey also tried to establish a triple entente between itself, Syria, and Qatar to push Syria away from Tehran. This is why Turkey has been very active vocally against Israel, but in reality has maintained its alliance and military deals with Tel Aviv. Inside Turkey itself, however, there is also an internal struggle for power that could one day ignite into a civil war with multiple players.

Turkey as the New Model and “Calvinist Islam

Turkey in its present form is now being presented as the democratic model for the rebelling Arab masses to follow. It is true that Ankara has progressed since the days it use to ban Kurdish from being spoken in public, but Turkey is not a functional democracy and is very much a kleptocracy with fascist tendencies. The military still plays a huge role in the affairs of the state and government. The term “deep state,” which denotes a state run secretly from the top-down by unaccountable bodies and individuals, in fact originates from Turkey. Civil rights are still not respected in Turkey and candidates for public office have to be approved by the state apparatus and the groups controlling them, which try to filter out anyone that would go against the status quo in Turkey.

Turkey is not being presented as a model for the Arabs due to its democratic qualifications. It is being presented as the political model for the Arabs, because of a project of political and socio-economic “bida” (innovation) directed towards manipulating Islam. Although very popular, the Turkish Justice and Development Party or JDP (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi or AKP) was allowed to come into power in 2002, without opposition from the Turkish military and the Turkish courts. Before this there was little tolerance for political Islam in Turkey. The JDP/AKP was founded in 2001 and the timing of their founding and their electoral win in 2002 was also tied to the objective of redrawing Southwest Asia and North Africa.

This project to manipulate and redefine Islam and Muslims seeks to subordinate Islam to capitalist interests through a new wave of political Islamists, such as the JDP/AKP. A new strand of Islam is being fashioned through what has come to be called “Calvinist Islam” or a “Muslim version of the Protestant work ethic.” It is this model that is being nurtured in Turkey and now being presented to Egypt and the Arabs by Washington and Brussels.

This “Calvinist Islam” also has no problem with the “reba” or interest system, which is prohibited under Islam. It is this system that is used to enslave individuals and societies with the chains of debt to global capitalism. It is in this context that the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is calling for so-called “democratic reforms” amongst the Arabs.

The ruling families of Sauda Arabia and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms are also partners in the objective to enslave the Arabs through debt. In this regard Qatar and the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf are in the process of creating a Middle East Development Bank that is intended to give loans to Arab countries to help them transition towards democracy. The democracy promotion mission of the Middle East Development Bank is ironic because the countries forming it are all staunch dictatorships.

It is also this subordination of Islam to capitalism that is causing internal friction in Iran. The hope in Washington is that this “Calvinist Islam” will take root under the banner of new democratic states with supposedly Islamic governments. These governments will effectively enslave their countries by placing them further into debt and selling national assets. They will help subvert the region extending from North Africa to Southwest and Central Asia as the area is being balkanized and restructured in the image of Israel under ethnocratic systems. Tel Aviv will also wield wide influence amongst these new states. Hand-in-hand with this project, different forms of ethno-linguistic nationalism and religious intolerance are also being promoted to divide the region.

Washington Arranging the Geo-Strategic Chessboard

Targeting Iran and Syria is part of the larger strategy of controlling Eurasia. Chinese interests have been attacked everywhere on the global map. Sudan has been balkanized and both North Sudan and South Sudan are headed towards conflict. Libya has been attacked and is in the process of being balkanized. Syria is being pressured to surrender and fall into line. The U.S. and Britain are now integrating their national security councils, which parallels Anglo-American bodies from the Second World War.

Targeting Pakistan is also connected to neutralizing Iran and attacking Chinese interests and any future unity in Eurasia. At the same time in Eastern Europe, the U.S. is building its fortifications in Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania to neutralize Russia and the former Soviet republics. Belarus and Ukraine are being put under increasing pressure too. All these steps are part of a military strategy to encircle Eurasia and to either control its energy supplies or the flow of energy towards China. Even Cuba and Venezuela are under increasing threat. The military noose is globally being tightened by Washington.

It appears that new Islamist parties are being formed and groomed by the Al-Sauds to take power in Arab capitals. Such governments will work to subordinate their respective states. The Pentagon, NATO, and Israel may even select some of these new governments to justify new wars.

It has to be mentioned that Norman Podhoretz, a original member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), in 2008 suggest an apocalyptic future scenario in which Israel launches a nuclear war against Iran, Syria, and Egypt amongst its other neighbouring countries. This would include Lebanon and Jordan. Podhoretz described an expansionist Israel and even suggested that the Israelis would militarily occupy the oil fields of the Persian Gulf.

What came across as odd in 2008 was the suggestion by Podhoretz, which was influenced by the strategic analysis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), that Tel Aviv would launch a nuclear attack on its staunch Egyptian allies ruling Cairo under President Mubarak. Despite the fact that the old regime still remains, Mubarak is no longer in power in Cairo. The Egyptian military still gives orders, but Islamists may come to power. This is while Muslims have continuously been demonized by the U.S. government and most of its NATO allies.

Unknown Future: What Next?

The U.S., the E.U., and Israel are trying to use the upheavals in the Turko-Arabo-Iranic World to further their own objectives. The situations in Libya and Syria are testimony to this. Along with the Al-Sauds they are attempting to spread “fitna” or division amongst the peoples of Southwest Asia and North Africa. The Israeli-Khaliji strategic alliance, formed by Tel Aviv and the ruling Arab families in the Persian Gulf, is crucial in this regard.

In Egypt the upheaval is far from over and the people are radicalizing. This is resulting in concessions by the military junta in Cairo. Protests are also starting to take aim at Israel and the military junta has been forced to start dialogue with Tehran for diplomatic rapprochement. In Tunisia too, the popular stream is headed towards radicalization.

Washington and its cohorts are playing with fire. They may think that this period of chaos presents an excellent opportunity for confrontation with Iran and Syria. The upheaval that has taken root in the Turko-Arabo-Iranic World will have unpredictable results. The resilience of the peoples in Bahrain and Yemen under the threats of increased state-sponsored violence serves as testimonies to this.

 read more ...

LIBYA BOMBSHELL: Obama Overruled Two Top Lawyers, Who Told Him War Must Be Terminated - Saturday, June 18, 2011
Joe Weisenthal | This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war.

Joe Weisenthal
Business Insider
June 18, 2011

This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war, given that actions have exceeded the 90 day period during which The White House doesn’t need Congressional authority for military action under the War Powers Act.

Obama

The White House response: We don’t need Congressional approval because this is not technically a hostile action (because we don’t have ground troops in Libya).

Tonight the NYT has a major bombshell: Two top lawyers — Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — told The White House otherwise.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder sided with Krass.

But Rather than heed their advice, he instead went with two lawyers with views more favorable to him: Bob Bauer (who is internal at The White House), and State Department advisor Harold Koh.

This is striking:

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

No doubt this will only embolden the bi-partisan group of Congressmen who think the war at this point is illegal.

And of course one can only imagine how news like this would have gone down under the Bush administration.

All that being said, Obama does have the support of serious lawyers, and he himself was a constitutional lawyer, so the idea that just because Johnson and Krass opposed this decision doesn’t in itself end it.

But this is still tough.

For some context, see this American Conservative story (from last June) on the war philosophy of Harold Koh, a renowned liberal legal scholar who also has a history of justifying hostile activity.

At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.

There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance. What matters is that Koh said it. Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?

Read the whole story at The American Conservative >

 read more ...

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War - Saturday, June 18, 2011
What is unfolding in Syria is an armed insurrection supported covertly by foreign powers including the US, Turkey and Israel.

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research
June 18, 2011

What is unfolding in Syria is an armed insurrection supported covertly by foreign powers including the US, Turkey and Israel.

Armed insurgents belonging to Islamist organizations have crossed the border from Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. The US State Department has confirmed that it is supporting the insurgency.

The United States is to expand contacts with Syrians who are counting on a regime change in the country.

This was stated by U.S. State Department official Victoria Nuland. “We started to expand contacts with the Syrians, those who are calling for change, both inside and outside the country,” she said.

Nuland also repeated that Barack Obama had previously called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to initiate reforms or to step down from power.” (Voice of Russia, June 17, 2011)

The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon as sovereign countries has been on the drawing board of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance for at least ten years.

Action against Syria is part of a “military roadmap”, a sequencing of military operations. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon had clearly identified Iraq, Libya, Syria and Lebanon as target countries of a US-NATO intervention:

“[The] Five-year campaign plan [included]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)

In “Winning Modern Wars” (page 130) General Wesley Clark states the following:

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

…He said it with reproach–with disbelief, almost–at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. …I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.”

The objective is to destabilize the Syrian State and implement “regime change” through the covert support of an armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist militia.

Media Disinformation

Tacitly acknowledged , the significance of an armed insurrection is casually dismissed by the Western media. If it were to be recognized and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different.

What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of civilian protesters. Press reports confirm, however, from the outset of the protest movement an exchange of gunfire between armed insurgents and the police, with casualties reported on both sides.

The insurrection started in mid March in the border city of Daraa, which is 10 km from the Jordanian border.

The Daraa “protest movement” on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement.

….

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.

(See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24591Global Research, May 3, 2011)

The Role of Turkey

The center of the insurrection has now shifted to the small border town of Jisr al-Shughour, 10 km from the Turkish border.

Jisr al-Shughour has a population of 44,000 inhabitants. Armed insurgents have crossed the border from Turkey.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood are reported to have taken up arms in northwest Syria.

There are indications that Turkish military and intelligence are supporting these incursions.

There was no mass civilian protest movement in Jisr al-Shughour. The local population was caught in the crossfire. The fighting between armed rebels and government forces has contributed to triggering a refugee crisis, which is the center of media attention.

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War MB Rebels at Jisr al Choughour 1

Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011

In contrast, in the nation’s capital Damascus, where the mainstay of social movements is located, there have been mass rallies in support rather than in opposition to the government.

President Bashir al Assad is casually compared to presidents Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is that despite the authoritarian nature of the regime, president Al Assad is a popular figure who has widespread support of the Syrian population.

The large rally in Damascus on March 29, “with tens of thousands of supporters” (Reuters) of President Al Assad was barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-government rallies.

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War U43P5029T2D366598F24DT20110330184450
The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War U43P5029T2D366598F28DT20110330184450

Syrians display a giant national flag with a picture of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad during a
pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

On June 15, thousands of people rallied over several kilometers on Damascus’ main highway in a march holding up a 2.3 km Syrian flag. The rally was acknowledged by the media and casually dismissed as irrelevant.

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War li syrian flag 620 ap 00836

AP. Thousands of supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad carry a 2,300-metre-long Syrian flag in a demonstration in Damascus on Wednesday.

While the Syrian regime is by no means democratic, the objective of the US-NATO Israel military alliance is not to promote democracy. Quite the opposite. Washington’s intent is to eventually install a puppet regime.

The objective through media disinformation is to demonize president Al Assad and more broadly to destabilize Syria as a secular state. The latter objective is implemented through covert support of various Islamist organizations:

Syria is run by an authoritarian oligarchy which has used brute force in dealing with its citizens. The riots in Syria, however, are complex. They cannot be viewed as a straightforward quest for liberty and democracy. There has been an attempt by the U.S. and the E.U. to use the riots in Syria to pressure and intimidate the Syrian leadership. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and the March 14 Alliance have all played a role in supporting an armed insurrection.

The violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with a view of taking advantage of the internal tensions… Aside from the violent reaction of the Syrian Army, media lies have been used and bogus footage has been aired. Money and weapons have also been funnelled to elements of the Syrian opposition by the U.S., the E.U….Funding has also been provided to ominous and unpopular foreign-based Syrian opposition figures, while weapons caches were smuggled from Jordan and Lebanon into Syria. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America’s Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon?http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25000, Global Research, June 10, 2011)

The joint Israel-Turkey military and intelligence agreement

The geopolitics of this process of destabilization are far-reaching. Turkey is involved in supporting the rebels.

The Turkish government has sanctioned Syrian opposition groups in exile which support an armed insurgency. Turkey is also pressuring Damascus to conform to Washington’s demands for regime change.

Turkey is a member of NATO with a powerful military force. Moreover, Israel and Turkey have a longstanding joint military-intelligence agreement, which is explicitly directed against Syria.

…A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) “joint committees” to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed “to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.”

Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders.”

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky,“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Covert support to armed insurgents out of Turkey or Jordan would no doubt be coordinated under the joint Israel-Turkey military and intelligence agreement.

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War erdogan

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with (former) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (2004)

Dangerous Crossroads: The Broader Middle East War

Israel and NATO signed a far-reaching military cooperation agreement in 2005. Under this agreement, Israel is considered a de facto member of NATO.

If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood be involved in military undertakings alongside NATO forces (under the NATO-Israel bilateral agreement). Turkey would also play an active military role.

A military intervention in Syria on fake humanitarian grounds would lead to an escalation of the US-NATO led war over a large area extending from North Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It would also contribute to a process of political destabilization in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. It would also set the stage for a conflict with Iran.

 read more ...

government criminals war crimes

Sen. Al Franken: Congress must vote on Libya - Saturday, June 18, 2011

Kase Wickman
Raw Story
June 18, 2011

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) said that congressional approval would be needed to authorize continued U.S. military intervention in Libya.

“The War Powers Act should be enforced,” Franken told Talking Points Memo after giving a speech at Netroots Nation in his home state of Minnesota. “We’re going to have to vote.”

Obama

Friday, it was reported that President Barack Obama had overruled two of his senior lawyers, who said that he would need congressional approval under the War Powers Act to take action in Libya.

Last week, a bipartisan group of House members filed a lawsuit against Obama for what they saw as a violation of the act.

Franken said that though U.S. involvement is limited, it’s still enough that it should have been voted on by Congress.

“I disagree with his take on it,” he said. “I understand what his take is, which is that we don’t have any troops on the ground, we are — you know, whatever it is, I don’t agree with it.”

 

Everything Our Governments Are Doing Now Was Planned BEFORE 9/11 - Saturday, June 18, 2011
We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything. Is it true?

Washington’s Blog
June 18, 2011

We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything.

Is it true?

Let’s look at the facts:

  • The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)
  • The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11. Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:

    After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

    The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

    (4:30 into this video).

  • Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11
  • Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this
  • The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11
  • It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence … but is an effective way to terrorize people
  • And – sadly – America played dirty games to justify and win wars before 9/11

9/11 didn’t change anything. It was simply an excuse to implement existing plans.

 read more ...